Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching
[BODY TEXT READ IN PART AT SOURCE, a full-text copy at a third-party host matching the Crossref record on masthead, volume, issue, pages and DOI. READ IN FULL: the abstract, the introduction, the review of prior switching literature, the theoretical model, Experiment 1 complete, Experiment 2 complete, and Experiment 3 method and most results. NOT READ: the remainder of Experiment 3, the whole of Experiment 4, and the General Discussion. ROUGHLY FOUR FIFTHS OF THE PAPER WAS READ AND EVERY ABSENCE CLAIM BELOW IS AN ABSENCE IN THAT FOUR FIFTHS ONLY] Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). 'Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching.' Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763 to 797. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763. First author Joshua S. Rubinstein, confirmed at api.openalex.org with sequence 'first', and his affiliation as printed is the Federal Aviation Administration, William J. Hughes Technical Center, not a university psychology department; Meyer and Evans, University of Michigan. DESIGN: a successive-tasks paradigm using physical stimulus cards, participants working through decks either repeating one task down a block or alternating between two, with switching cost defined as the difference between mean reaction time on alternating and repetitive blocks. Experiments 1 and 4 classified geometric objects by perceptual rules modelled on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; Experiments 2 and 3 solved two-digit arithmetic problems with complexity manipulated as addition and subtraction against multiplication and division, 83 per cent of problems requiring a carry, solutions reported verbally. PARTICIPANTS: Experiment 1, twelve undergraduates in introductory psychology at the University of Michigan; Experiment 2, thirty-six, eighteen with task cues and eighteen without; Experiment 3, thirty-six; and the APA press release, read in full separately, gives Experiment 4 as twenty-four, for a total of 108 young adults at one university. THE ACTUAL SWITCH COSTS AS PRINTED, IN MILLISECONDS: Experiment 1, 'substantial switching-time costs (M = 975 ms, SE = 71 ms)'; Experiment 2, 653 ms, SE = 140 ms; Experiment 3, 614 ms, SE = 237 ms, replicating Experiment 2; one switch effectively free, 'the time taken for switching from subtraction to addition problems was again very short (M = 29 ms)'; the complexity effect in Experiment 3 a mean difference of 960 ms, SE = 355 ms; and the familiarity asymmetry overall NOT reliable, mean difference 261 ms, SE = 298 ms. SCALE CONTEXT: in Experiment 2 multiplication and division took 3,597 ms longer than addition and subtraction on repetitive blocks, so the switch cost is a few hundred milliseconds sitting on top of trials lasting several seconds; and the paper's own review notes mean switching costs of about 180 ms and 135 ms after response-stimulus intervals of 20 ms and 1,100 ms, which is the residual cost that survives preparation. DOES THE PAPER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PRODUCTIVE TIME, WORK OR 40 PER CENT? NO, within the four fifths read, established by exhaustive case-insensitive text search of the retrieved full text: zero occurrences of 'productiv', 'percent', 'per cent', '40%', 'workplace', 'office worker' or 'job performance', and the only occurrence of the string '40' anywhere in the retrieved text is in the correspondence postcode and in figure axis labels. Its only gestures at daily life are two introduction sentences about preparing meals while tending children and driving while using cellular telephones. THE CAVEAT TRAVELS: Experiment 4 and the General Discussion were not read, so this is a strong absence claim and not a complete one, and the vault's rule is that it may not be stated as complete certainty.
[BODY TEXT READ IN PART AT SOURCE, a full-text copy at a third-party host matching the Crossref record on masthead, volume, issue, pages and DOI. READ IN FULL: the abstract, the introduction, the review of prior switching literature, the theoretical model, Experiment 1 complete, Experiment 2 complete, and Experiment 3 method and most results. NOT READ: the remainder of Experiment 3, the whole of Experiment 4, and the General Discussion. ROUGHLY FOUR FIFTHS OF THE PAPER WAS READ AND EVERY ABSENCE CLAIM BELOW IS AN ABSENCE IN THAT FOUR FIFTHS ONLY] Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). 'Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching.' Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763 to 797. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763. First author Joshua S. Rubinstein, confirmed at api.openalex.org with sequence 'first', and his affiliation as printed is the Federal Aviation Administration, William J. Hughes Technical Center, not a university psychology department; Meyer and Evans, University of Michigan. DESIGN: a successive-tasks paradigm using physical stimulus cards, participants working through decks either repeating one task down a block or alternating between two, with switching cost defined as the difference between mean reaction time on alternating and repetitive blocks. Experiments 1 and 4 classified geometric objects by perceptual rules modelled on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; Experiments 2 and 3 solved two-digit arithmetic problems with complexity manipulated as addition and subtraction against multiplication and division, 83 per cent of problems requiring a carry, solutions reported verbally. PARTICIPANTS: Experiment 1, twelve undergraduates in introductory psychology at the University of Michigan; Experiment 2, thirty-six, eighteen with task cues and eighteen without; Experiment 3, thirty-six; and the APA press release, read in full separately, gives Experiment 4 as twenty-four, for a total of 108 young adults at one university. THE ACTUAL SWITCH COSTS AS PRINTED, IN MILLISECONDS: Experiment 1, 'substantial switching-time costs (M = 975 ms, SE = 71 ms)'; Experiment 2, 653 ms, SE = 140 ms; Experiment 3, 614 ms, SE = 237 ms, replicating Experiment 2; one switch effectively free, 'the time taken for switching from subtraction to addition problems was again very short (M = 29 ms)'; the complexity effect in Experiment 3 a mean difference of 960 ms, SE = 355 ms; and the familiarity asymmetry overall NOT reliable, mean difference 261 ms, SE = 298 ms. SCALE CONTEXT: in Experiment 2 multiplication and division took 3,597 ms longer than addition and subtraction on repetitive blocks, so the switch cost is a few hundred milliseconds sitting on top of trials lasting several seconds; and the paper's own review notes mean switching costs of about 180 ms and 135 ms after response-stimulus intervals of 20 ms and 1,100 ms, which is the residual cost that survives preparation. DOES THE PAPER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PRODUCTIVE TIME, WORK OR 40 PER CENT? NO, within the four fifths read, established by exhaustive case-insensitive text search of the retrieved full text: zero occurrences of 'productiv', 'percent', 'per cent', '40%', 'workplace', 'office worker' or 'job performance', and the only occurrence of the string '40' anywhere in the retrieved text is in the correspondence postcode and in figure axis labels. Its only gestures at daily life are two introduction sentences about preparing meals while tending children and driving while using cellular telephones. THE CAVEAT TRAVELS: Experiment 4 and the General Discussion were not read, so this is a strong absence claim and not a complete one, and the vault's rule is that it may not be stated as complete certainty.
Written from the bODY TEXT READ IN PART AT SOURCE, a full-text copy at a third-party host matching the Crossref record on masthead, volume, issue, pages and DOI. READ IN FULL: the abstract, the introduction, the review of prior switching literature, the theoretical model, Experiment 1 complete, Experiment 2 complete, and Experiment 3 method and most results. NOT READ: the remainder of Experiment 3, the whole of Experiment 4, and the General Discussion. ROUGHLY FOUR FIFTHS OF THE PAPER WAS READ AND EVERY ABSENCE CLAIM BELOW IS AN ABSENCE IN THAT FOUR FIFTHS ONLY.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763-797. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763