Comparing Switch Costs: Alternating Runs and Explicit Cuing

by: Erik M Altmann

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 33, No. 3. (May 2007), pp. 475-483.

View FullText article

ScienceDirect

Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

Find related articles from these CiteULike users

mkharito, sherdim, chiapet, EPLab (group)

Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

attention, ef, flexibility, interruption, multitasking, perception, switch_cost, switchingcosts, task_switching

Abstract

The task-switching literature routinely conflates different operational definitions of switch cost, its predominant behavioral measure. This article is an attempt to draw attention to differences between the two most common definitions, alternating-runs switch cost (ARS) and explicit-cuing switch cost (ECS). ARS appears to include both the costs of switching tasks and the switch-independent costs specific to the first trial of a run, with the implication that it should generally be larger than ECS, but worse is that the alternating-runs procedure does not allow these costs to be separated. New data are presented to make these issues concrete, existing data are surveyed for evidence that ARS is larger than ECS, and implications of conflating these measures are examined for existing theoretical constructs.

@article{citeulike:1352248, abstract = {The task-switching literature routinely conflates different operational definitions of switch cost, its predominant behavioral measure. This article is an attempt to draw attention to differences between the two most common definitions, alternating-runs switch cost (ARS) and explicit-cuing switch cost (ECS). ARS appears to include both the costs of switching tasks and the switch-independent costs specific to the first trial of a run, with the implication that it should generally be larger than ECS, but worse is that the alternating-runs procedure does not allow these costs to be separated. New data are presented to make these issues concrete, existing data are surveyed for evidence that ARS is larger than ECS, and implications of conflating these measures are examined for existing theoretical constructs.}, author = {Altmann, Erik M. }, citeulike-article-id = {1352248}, journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition}, keywords = {ef, flexibility, task\_switching}, month = {May}, number = {3}, pages = {475--483}, posted-at = {2007-05-31 18:15:08}, priority = {2}, title = {Comparing Switch Costs: Alternating Runs and Explicit Cuing}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6X09-4NVKN31-2/2/5bde94aff0a7e3c2fc81b899f103966d}, volume = {33}, year = {2007} }

RIS record

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:1352248 L3 - citeulike-article-id:1352248 TI - Comparing Switch Costs: Alternating Runs and Explicit Cuing JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition VL - 33 IS - 3 SP - 475 EP - 483 N2 - The task-switching literature routinely conflates different operational definitions of switch cost, its predominant behavioral measure. This article is an attempt to draw attention to differences between the two most common definitions, alternating-runs switch cost (ARS) and explicit-cuing switch cost (ECS). ARS appears to include both the costs of switching tasks and the switch-independent costs specific to the first trial of a run, with the implication that it should generally be larger than ECS, but worse is that the alternating-runs procedure does not allow these costs to be separated. New data are presented to make these issues concrete, existing data are surveyed for evidence that ARS is larger than ECS, and implications of conflating these measures are examined for existing theoretical constructs. KW - ef KW - flexibility KW - task_switching AU - Altmann, Erik PY - 2007/05// UR - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6X09-4NVKN31-2/2/5bde94aff0a7e3c2fc81b899f103966d ER -

RIS BibTeX