Response-repetition costs in task switching do not index a simple response-switch bias: Evidence from manipulating the number of response alternatives

Abstract

Response repetitions aid performance when a task repeats but impair performance when a task switches. Although this interaction is robust, theoretical accounts remain controversial. Here, we used an un-cued, predictable task-switching paradigm with univalent targets to explore whether a simple bias to switch the response when the task switches can explain the interaction. In Experiment 1A (n = 40), we replicated the basic interaction in a two-choice task. In Experiment 1B (n = 60), we observed the same interaction in a three-choice task, wherein a bias to switch the response when the task switches cannot prime a specific alternative response because both remaining response alternatives are equally likely. Exploratory comparisons revealed a larger interaction between task repetition and response repetition in the three-choice task than in the two-choice task for mean response time (RT) and the opposite pattern for mean error rate (ER). Critically, in the three-choice task, response-repetition costs in task switches were significant in both RT and ER. Since a bias to switch the response cannot prime a specific response alternative in a three-choice task, we conclude that such a bias cannot account for response-repetition costs in task-switch trials.