Cue Transparency as an Aid to Mental Switch Set Switching - Literature review Example

Cue Transparency as an Aid to Mental Switch Set Switching Introduction: Brain is one of the critical organs of the body, which performs the most complex functions in the day-to-day life of a human being. One such function is cognitive flexibility, which involves the brain’s ability to “adaptively select” among “multiple representations of an object, multiple strategies, or multiple task sets” the one which best suits the requirements of a given situation, as well as the ability to “switch among such representations” according to the “changing relevant cues” in the environment (Chevalier & Blaye, 2009, p. 782). Therefore, by understanding what triggers as well as impacts this functioning of the brain, researchers can find out ways to improve the cognitive ability of a person. This especially holds significance in the case of children, as when they are molded appropriately from childhood they can grow up to be citizens with much better abilities, thus contributing more to the nation as well as the world in general. Transition from General discussion to Specific: Visual attention has been an area of interest for researchers since the earlier times, as every time a person opens his or her eyes, they are “confronted with an overwhelming amount of information,” however, the person experiences a “seemingly effortless understanding” of the visual world (Carrasco, 2011, p. 1484). Thus, this occurs as a result of “attention,” which helps a person to “ignore irrelevant information” and attend to as well as interpret the “important parts” of things he or she sees (p. 1484). The process of paying attention encompasses various dynamic mechanisms that involve the “enhancement” or selection of particular information and simultaneously, “inhibition” of rest of the information (Chun & Wolfe 2001, p. 281). Furthermore, the process of selection is of higher significance as the information being inhibited is based on the information being ignored. In other words, when bombarded with a lot of visual information, a person selects what he wants first rather than ignoring what he does not want, thus, whatever is being ignored is a result of what is being selected. Furthermore, researchers have used this piece of information to their advantage and conducted various studies based on the process of selection in order to understand the realm of visual attention in a better light. These studies have basically concentrated on “varying the quantity and nature” of distracting information, thus increasing or decreasing the ease of selection process applied by the brain of an individual (Huang & Pashler 2007, p. 599). One such study is the Flanker Task, which aims to test the visual attention of a person based on a given element, which they are supposed to pay attention to and respond appropriately, and at the same time, ignore the distracting information that may change in number as well as features according to different trials. Similarly, the study conducted by George Houghton, aims to explore the role of cue transparency in mental switch set switching in relation to the flanker task. In this study, the students are asked to focus on a target stimulus, which has been flanked with congruent and incongruent distracters, and then the participants were asked to choose the corresponding scene to which the particular target matched. Aims of the study: This study aims to reveal that reaction times of the participants were different based on the distracters being congruent or incongruent. Furthermore, the study also showed that cue transparency results in faster reaction times as compared to non-cued trials. Moreover, the study also aims to incorporate the element of unmixing the mixing costs within the research and find out its impact on stimulus response suppression. However, in order to comprehend the study and its results appropriately, it is important for one to understand the key theories and concepts underlying the study. Theoretical and Historical Background: The Flanker Task, was first developed by Eriksen and Eriksen in 1974 and it had been basically used to conduct studies on adults based on their ability to “ignore interference from irrelevant stimulus information (distracters),” which were designed to create response conflict (Cornish & Wilding, p. 290). This test consists of “two predesignated target stimuli,” for instance, letter J and R or the right and left arrow, which induce a “motor response” of pressing either the left or right arrow (290). Furthermore, the target stimuli are also flanked with distracters that may be congruent (JJJ or RRR) or incongruent (JJRJJ) with the correct response (290). Once the study was conducted, it was found out that congruent flankers take less time in evoking a correct response when compared to incongruent flankers. Moreover, all standard flanker tasks conducted afterwards showed similar results, thus, validating that incongruent flankers cause “interference,” which leads to “slower and less accurate responses” in comparison to congruent flankers, and this is known as “flanker congruency effect (White, Ratcliff & Starns, 2011, p. 211). The Flanker Task has a particular sequence in the representation of target stimulus, as the target is always presented in the center. This pre-determined knowledge regarding the position of the target helps the participant from not wasting time with eye movements. As Hayhoe & Ballard reveal, the scan path used by an individual to view an image is not merely dependent on the physical properties of the target, but also on the “knowledge and interests” of the participant as well as their “understanding” of the task (Rensink, 2013, p. 102). This assertion is further validated through the cueing effects found out through flanker test as well as the test conducted by Houghton, as participants performance in detecting a target item is “more quick” and “accurate” when presented with “advance knowledge” about its position (p. 106). Thus, with increased transparency in cueing, it can be seen that participants perform better in terms of both speed and accuracy. Moreover, participants’ performance is further enhanced when similar type of trials is repeated one after the other. This is validated by Dong et al, as he identifies that the performance in the “current” trial is influenced by “previous” one (2014, p. 1). He finds that individuals show “quicker response time” and “higher response accuracy” when incongruent trials follow incongruent trials as compared to when incongruent trials are followed by congruent trials (p. 1). However, Chun & Wolfe find that in certain word tests, there occurs a phenomenon called “repetition blindness,” which entails in poorer performance of the participant in case of “repeated targets,” such as the same word (284). Thus, it becomes clear that repetition of targets impacts the performance of an individual based on the nature of the target, that is, targets of a specific shape have positive impact whereas targets that are words evoke repetition blindness. Key Theories and Concepts: In order to further understand the studies involving visual attention, one must first understand key concepts, such as, mental set switching, which play an elemental role in Houghton’s study. Mental set switching is the switching of attention of a person between two or more different visual sets, which the individual can differentiate while undergoing a mental set switch task. Similarly, task switching or task switch implies a “change” in the current task from that of the previous one, whereas task repetition implies a repetition of previous task cue (Grange & Houghton, 2010, p. 481). Switch cost refers to the “difference” in reaction time as well as errors that occur as a result of switching between trials, say “BA sequence” and “AA sequence” (p. 481). On the other hand, the priming theory relates with the “influence” of an event on the “response of a subsequent event” (Dong et al, p. 2). The study conducted by Houghton reveals that “repetition priming effects” along with “perceptual information” play a significant role in the positive response of the participant, whereas, in comparison, the switch costs result in negative response (Beffa, Cooper & Houghton, 2011, p. 1). Another theory that holds relevance here is cognitive adaption that is the ability of an individual to “monitor behaviour” and identify situations, which need “compensatory adjustments” with regard to cognitive resources (Dong et al, p. 2). Conflicting adaption theory, on the other hand, refers to the “conflict” that “triggers the allocation” of cognitive resources, and thus suggests that “conflict driven control” decreases the facilitating ease of “consecutive repetition” of similar trials (p. 2). Therefore, it becomes clear that conflict adaption ability of an individual opposes him or her from deriving best benefits out of the cue priming effect, as the former involves adapting to newer mental sets, whereas the latter promotes familiarisation with a particular mental set. However, in the case of switching tasks and switch costs, the researchers have revealed that mixing costs occur as a result of “episodic interference” when stimulus changes as well as “increased suppression” when stimulus response maps are repeated (Beffa, Cooper & Houghton, 2011, p. 1). Thus, it can be seen that there are various theories involving the cognitive ability of an individual such as switch set theory, cue priming theory and cognitive adaption theory etc, however it cannot be yet said which one is the best suited theory on a generalised account. This gives leeway for further researches as well as novel theories that may include all three aspects together in the future. Rationale for Study: Several vigorous researches have been conducted based on the topic of cognitive flexibility functioning of the brain as well as the various cues that influence this ability of the humans. Furthermore, the studies have already examined and proved that flanked targets and cue switch impact the cognitive flexibility of humans. However, there still arises a need to apply this knowledge to more ecologically significant situation, and that is what the study at hand basically aims at. It helps examine the effects of cue switching and flanking targets in real life environments, thus linking the findings and inferences to more significant scenarios. Hypothesis: The hypothesis (H1) for this study states that the reaction times for incongruently flanked targets will be slower than that of congruently flanked targets, and the null hypothesis (H0) represents that the reaction times for both incongruently flanked targets and congruently flanked targets will be the same. References Beffa, P. M., Cooper, S., & Houghton, G. (2011). Unmixing the Mixing Cost: Contributions From Dimensional Relevance and Stimulus-Response Suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. doi:10.1037/a0025979 Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51, 1484–1525. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012 Chevalier, N., & Blaye, A. (2009). Setting Goals to Switch Between Tasks: Effect of Cue Transparency on Children’s Cognitive Flexibility. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 782–797. doi:10.1037/a0015409 Chun, M. M., & Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Visual Attention. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Perception (pp. 272-310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Cornish, K., & Wilding, J. M. (2010). Attention, genes, and developmental disorders. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Dong, G., Zhou, H., Lin, X., Hu, Y., & Lu, Q. (2014). Why the processing of repeated targets are better than that of no repetition: evidence from easy-to-difficult and difficult-to-easy switching situations. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 10(4). Retrieved from http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/pdf/1744-9081-10-4.pdf Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2010). Cue-switch costs in task-switching: cue priming or control processes? Psychological Research-psychologische Forschung, 74, 481–490. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0270-y Huang, L., & Pashler, H. (2007). A Boolean Map Theory of Visual Attention. Psychological Review, 114(3), 599 – 631. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.599 Rensink, R. A. (2013). Perception and Attention. Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology, 97-116. Retrieved from http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~rensink/publications/download/PerceptAttn-rr.pdf White, C. N., Ratcliff, R., and Starns, J. J. (2011). Diffusion models of the flanker task: Discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 210–238. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.08.001 Read More