Cited by 200Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismCognitive Functions and Memory

Shifting set about task switching: behavioral and neural evidence for distinct forms of cognitive flexibility

Open access
Ravizza, Susan M., Carter, Cameron S.·2008·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

Task switching is an important aspect of cognitive control and understanding its underlying mechanisms is the focus of considerable research. In this paper, we contrast two different kinds of task switching paradigms and provide evidence that different cognitive mechanisms underlie switching behavior depending on whether the switch is between sets of rules (rule switch) or sets of features presented simultaneously (perceptual switch). In two experiments, we demonstrate that behavioral effects (Experiment 1) and neural recruitment (Experiment 2) vary with the type of switch performed. While perceptual switch costs occurred when the alternative feature set was physically present, rule switch costs were observed even in their absence. Rule switching was also characterized by larger target repetition effects and by greater engagement of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In contrast, perceptual switching was associated with greater recruitment of the parietal cortex. These results provide strong evidence for multiple forms of switching and suggest the limitations of generalizing results across shift types.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.06.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 200

Authors
Ravizza, S. M., & Carter, C. S.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Ravizza, Susan M.
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-10
Volume
46
Issue
12
Pages
2924-2935
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2000948160
Cited by
200
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of California, Davis
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH059883, K02MH064190)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
task switching, cognitive flexibility, rule switching, perceptual switching, set-shifting, cognitive control, switch costs, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, neural recruitment
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Cognition, Discrimination, Psychological, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Psychomotor Performance, Set, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review