On the Automaticity of Semantic Processing during Task Switching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that processes formerly believed to be automatic are, in fact, strongly modulated by top-down influences. The purpose of the present work was to investigate how cognitive control can affect the purported automaticity of word processing by examining the impact of task switching on semantic processing using the ERP technique. In the context of the psychological refractory period dual-task paradigm, two experiments contrasted the context-sensitive N400 ERP elicited by the second of two target words under conditions that involved either a task switch or no-task switch. Although the N400 was not affected by SOA in the absence of switching, it was strongly attenuated at short SOAs when the psychological refractory period procedure involved a switch from a perceptual to a semantic task (Experiment 1) or a switch between two different semantic tasks (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that semantic processing cannot be performed in parallel with task switching and illustrate limitations in the ability of the cognitive system to adapt flexibly to the dynamically changing challenges of the environment according to task demands and behavioral goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".