were used for each task. RT was slower for task repetition than for cue repetition and about the same as RT for task alternation, consistent with Model 2 but not Model 1. The results suggest that the explicit task-cuing procedure does not require an endogenous act of control. Clever Hans was a

Many researchers interpret switch costs in the explicit task-cuing procedure as reflecting endogenous task-set reconfiguration. G. D. Logan and C. Bundesen (2003) challenged this interpretation empirically and theoretically. They argued that many experiments confounded cue encoding benefits with switch costs and they showed that unconfounded switch costs could be vanishingly small. They proposed a theory in which subjects use a single task set in the explicit task-cuing procedure and switch costs reflect cue encoding benefits, not reconfiguration. S. Monsell and G. A. Mizon (2006) responded to these challenges, describing conditions under which substantial switch costs could be observed in the explicit task-cuing procedure and providing a theoretical account of performance in which reconfiguration occurred in G. D. Logan and C. Bundesen’s experiments. This article is a response to S. Monsell and G. A. Mizon’s challenge that highlights empirical problems with their evidence and reports an experiment that challenges critical assumptions of their theoretical account.

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.