Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Cognitive Multitasking: Inhibition in Task Switching Depends on Stimulus Complexity Cover

Cognitive Multitasking: Inhibition in Task Switching Depends on Stimulus Complexity

Open Access
|Sep 2020

Figures & Tables

joc-3-1-115-g1.jpg
Figure 1

Example stimuli used in Experiments 1, 2, and 3. Left side: Experiment 1. Stimulus size was 29.5 cm by 19.3 cm (28.5 by 16.0 cm in Experiment 1c). The stimuli differed only with respect to features of the oncoming car. In the upper example, the oncoming car is a blue BMW with a toll sticker on the windshield; in the lower example, the oncoming car is a red Toyota Prius without toll sticker. Right side, upper: Experiment 2. Stimulus size was 10.5 cm by 14.0 cm. An old female happy face and a young male angry face are presented as examples. Right side, lower: Experiment 3. Stimulus size was 14.0 cm by 10.5 cm. The oncoming cars from the pictures of Experiment 1 were presented centrally on plain background.

joc-3-1-115-g2.png
Figure 2

Mean RT in N-2 repetitions and N-2 switches and mean RT inhibition effects in Experiments 1, 2, and 3. Inhibition effects were computed as the difference between N-2 repetitions and N-2 switches. Error bars indicate one standard error of mean. 1a: car tasks, auditory verbal cues; 1b: car tasks, auditory verbal cues; 1c: car tasks, abstract visual cues. 2a: face tasks, cue stays; 2b: face tasks, cue disappears; 2c: face tasks, 8 different stimuli only. 3a: car tasks, abstract visual cues, cars presented centrally on plain background; 3b: car tasks, direct replication.

joc-3-1-115-g3.png
Figure 3

Mean Error Rates in N-2 repetitions and N-2 switches and mean inhibition effects in Experiments 1, 2, and 3. Error bars indicate one standard error of mean. 1a: car tasks, auditory verbal cues; 1b: car tasks, auditory verbal cues; 1c: car tasks, abstract visual cues. 2a: face tasks, cue stays; 2b: face tasks, cue disappears; 2c: face tasks, 8 different stimuli only. 3a: car tasks, abstract visual cues, cars presented centrally on plain background; 3b: car tasks, direct replication.

Table 1

Analysis of variability in Experiments 1, 2, and 3. Intra-individual variability of RT data, and inter-individual variability of RT and error data. Scores are standard deviations of all participants in each experimental group and condition. 1a: car tasks, auditory verbal cues; 1b: car tasks, auditory verbal cues; 1c: car tasks, abstract visual cues. 2a: face tasks, cue stays; 2b: face tasks, cue disappears; 2c: face tasks, 8 different stimuli only. 3a: car tasks, abstract visual cues, cars presented centrally on plain background; 3b: car tasks, direct replication.

Experiment 1Experiment 2Experiment 3
1a1b1c2a2b2c3a3b
Intra-individual variability in RT (in ms)
    N-2 repetition158342502413377393544446
    N-2 switch162349514390357380524441
Inter-individual variability in RT (in ms)
    N-2 repetition135216294238230268175226
    N-2 switch134226288221225235153230
Inter-individual variability in Error Rates
    N-2 repetition4.1%3.4%6.0%2.7%3.1%4.4%2.3%2.6%
    N-2 switch3.7%3.8%4.5%3.7%2.5%3.5%3.2%2.4%
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.115 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Language: English
Submitted on: Mar 28, 2020
|
Accepted on: Jul 7, 2020
|
Published on: Sep 29, 2020
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2020 Stefanie Schuch, Otmar Bock, Klara Freitag, Luca Moretti, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.