Performance of task sequences is assumed to rely on activation and inhibition of tasks. An empirical marker of task inhibition is the so-called n - 2 repetition cost, which is assessed by comparing performance in trial n - 2 task repetitions (i.e., ABA) with that in n - 2 task switches (i.e., CBA). Current theoretical accounts assume that inhibition acts on the level of task representations (i.e., task sets). However, another potential target of task inhibition could be the representation of the task cue. To decide between these two alternatives, the authors used a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping design. They found significant n - 2 task repetition costs both with n - 2 cue repetitions and n - 2 cue switches. These costs were about equal (Experiment 1), and this data pattern was found for both short and long cuing intervals (Experiment 2). Together, the data suggest that task inhibition acts on task sets and not on cue representations. Keywords: cognitive control, task sequence performance, inhibition, cue-based processes The performance of task sequences relies on the activation of the currently relevant task (or "task set"; e.g., Rogers & Monsell, 1995) and on the inhibition of competing, but currently irrelevant tasks (e.g., Mayr & Keele, 2000; Schuch & Koch, 2003). Experimental paradigms designed to assess task-sequence performance usually also make use of valid cues that unambiguously indicate which task to perform next. Thereby it is assumed that participants create a task set that consists of multiple components (e.g., Meiran, 2000), such as a "stimulus set" that refers to relevant stimuli or stimulus dimensions and a "response set" that refers to response-related processes (Meiran, 2000; Schuch & Koch, 2003). Whereas stimulus set and response set are assumed to be the core of task sets, the cue is commonly thought to act as a memory retrieval aid to select the correct task set in long-term memory (see, e.g., Mayr & Kliegl, 2000, 2003; Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001; Schneider & Logan, 2005, for discussion). Current theories assume that inhibitory processes in the performance of task sequences exert their influence on the last abandoned task set (Mayr & Keele, 2000) or task-specific action rules (e.g., Schuch & Koch, 2003). An empirical marker of the inhibitory processes in the control of task sequences are the so-called n - 2 repetition costs. These costs are observed when comparing performance of an n - 2 repetition of task (i.e., ABA) with that of an n - 2 switch (i.e., CBA). These n - 2 repetition costs are thought to reflect persistence of inhibition that was exerted toward Task A when implementing Task B in Trial n - 1. Thus, when participants are required to switch from Task A to Task B, residual activation of the recently performed Task A impairs the successful implementation of Task B (Gade & Koch, 2005). To overcome this impairment, inhibition suppresses Task A (see also Mayr & Keele, 2000). When participants are then required to return to Task A, this task is still inhibited and its implementation and/or execution takes longer. Recently, however, Logan and Bundesen (2003; see also Schneider & Logan, 2005) pointed out that a change in task is usually associated with a change in cue, as experimenters usually use one cue per task. Thus, models claiming that the cue acts as a memory-retrieval aid for the currently relevant task set need to show that it is not cue processing itself but rather the task set that is activated or inhibited (see, e.g., Forstmann, Brass & Koch, 2007; Gade & Koch, 2007a; Mayr & Kliegl, 2003; Schneider & Logan, 2005, for discussion). The aim of the present study was to examine whether cues (or cue-related processes) are the target of inhibitory processes in task switching. In the present study, we used a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping, so that each task was indicated by two different cues. With regard to inhibitory processes in task switching, only one study has used a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping (Mayr & Kliegl, 2003, Experiment 3). …