![]() As I did this, I wondered if I could replicate the Things3 UI and workflow using GoodTask. I decided to give it a try again and had fun customizing themes and smartlists. I used GoodTask in the past, which is an app that leverages Reminders as a database. That said, there were so many aspects of Things I missed. Siri integration was better and I quickly found that attachments and shared tasks were features I couldn’t go back to living without. I recently started using Apple Reminders to see if it could work as a replacement for Things3 and while I don’t like the UI and today view as much, I did find that it functionally worked better for my needs. However, I’m sure like some people here, I’ve struggled with the lack of certain features in Things3, namely not having attachments, task sharing, and location-based reminders. From a UI and GTD perspective, it’s great. ![]() Finally, under some limited conditions, cost-free switches were found in both linguistic and non-linguistic domains however, suspension of top-down control may be restricted to language or highly automatic tasks.I’ll preface this by saying I LOVE Things3. In the linguistic domain, lexical inaccessibility introduces some unique control mechanisms, and repetition may magnify cross-domain overlap in control mechanisms. ![]() These results reveal greater overall advantages for voluntary over cued switching than previously reported, but also that the precise manifestation of the voluntary advantage can vary with different tasks. Experiment 3 confirmed the overall voluntary speed advantage for the read-add task in monolinguals, and revealed a reduction in switch costs only for a different non-linguistic task (size-parity judgments). Similarly, when targets were presented repeatedly (Experiment 2), voluntary responses were faster overall for both linguistic and non-linguistic switching, though here the advantage tended to be larger on switch trials. Without repetition (Experiment 1), voluntary responses were faster than cued responses on both stay and switch trials (especially in the non-linguistic switching task), whereas in previous studies the voluntary advantage was restricted to switch-cost reduction. Bilinguals switched between naming pictures in Spanish versus English or between reading numbers aloud versus adding their digits, either without or with repetition of stimuli, and with fewer requirements as to when and how much they had to switch relative to previous instantiations of voluntary switching. The current study contrasted cued versus voluntary switching to investigate switching efficiency and possible sharing of control mechanisms across linguistic and non-linguistic domains. Findings support the hypothesis that crosslinguistic competition impacts domain-general inhibition. Results suggest that bilinguals who perform well on the Stroop task show increased crosslinguistic competitor activation during early stages of word recognition and decreased competitor activation during later stages of word recognition. Across all bilinguals, stronger parallel language activation between 300 and 500 ms after word onset and reduced parallel language activation between 633 and 767 ms after word onset were associated with smaller Stroop effects. Bilinguals with higher Spanish proficiency showed more parallel language activation and smaller Stroop effects than bilinguals with lower Spanish proficiency. Participants heard words in English (e.g., comb) and identified corresponding pictures from a display that included pictures of a Spanish competitor (e.g., conejo, English rabbit). Thirty-one English-Spanish bilinguals and 30 English monolinguals participated in an eyetracking study. We investigate this link by examining English-Spanish bilinguals’ parallel language activation during auditory word recognition and nonlinguistic Stroop performance. Accounts of bilingual cognitive advantages suggest an associative link between crosslinguistic competition and inhibitory control.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |