Top

Gepubliceerd in:

12-04-2019 | Original Article

Embodied cognition in multitasking: increased hand-specific task shielding when stimuli are presented near the hand

Auteurs: Rico Fischer, Roman Liepelt

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2020

Abstract

The proximity of hand position alters the processing of visual stimuli. Stimuli presented close (proximal) to hands receive an enhanced allocation of visual attention compared to stimuli presented far (distal) from hands. In the present dual-task study we studied the consequences of this preferential processing when the stimulus for Task 1 (S1) and the stimulus for Task 2 (S2) were presented together and were assigned to specific response hands (R1 and R2) located proximal (at the monitor) versus distal (in the lap) to the stimuli. In two experiments, we tested whether stimulus–hand proximity affected the extent of between-task interference (i.e., influence of additional Task 2 processing on primary Task 1 processing). In Experiment 1, results showed that stimulus–hand proximity reduced the amount of between-task interference compared to the distal stimulus–hand condition. Extending these findings, in Experiment 2 a further reduction of between-task interference was obtained when a single hand was located at the monitor instead of two hands. These results are inconsistent with the assumption of a generally increased attentional processing benefit for multiple stimuli within hand space. Instead, these findings speak for a hand-specific processing benefit that supports more separate processing of two tasks. Together these findings demonstrate that stimulus–hand proximity affects the quality of multiple task performance, which is discussed in the context of both, basic and applied cognitive research.

vorige artikel Shared mechanisms underlying the location-, word- and arrow-based Simon effects

volgende artikel Are model parameters linked to processing stages? An empirical investigation for the ex-Gaussian, ex-Wald, and EZ diffusion models

Interference between tasks works also the other way around, i.e., S1 processing affects subsequent S2 categorization. Due to T1 prioritization, however, this forward crosstalk is of lesser theoretical importance. Yet, performance of T2 is often reported to exclude performance trade-offs between T1 and T2.

In addition to the amount of overlap within individual stimulus–response pairs, the importance of task separability on the magnitude of dual-task- and switch costs, for example, has also been highlighted in the context of input–output modality pairings in dual tasking (Halvorson, Ebner, & Hazeltine, 2013; Halvorson & Hazeltine, 2015; Maquestiaux, Ruthruff, Defer, & Ibrahime, 2018; Stelzel & Schubert, 2011) and task switching (Stephan & Koch, 2010, 2011), respectively. Here, it remains an interesting empirical question to which extent stimulus–hand proximity might also affect general task separation beyond facilitated task-specific stimulus–response binding (e.g., by discouraging feature binding across tasks).

An additional contributing factor to stronger task separation in the asynchronous PD and DP stimulus–hand conditions might be the larger spatial distance between both response hands compared to synchronous PP and DD stimulus–hand condition (Chen & Proctor, 2014; Lakens, Schneider, Jostmann, & Schubert, 2011). Spatial R1–R2 distance, however, cannot explain the entire result pattern, as in Experiment 1, R1–R2 distance was constant in both stimulus–hand conditions.

Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., 3rd, & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition,107(3), 1035–1047.CrossRef

Abrams, R. A., & Weidler, B. J. (2014). Trade-offs in visual processing for stimuli near the hands. Attention Perception & Psychophysics,76(2), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0583-1.CrossRef

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.CrossRefPubMed

Brockmole, J. R., Davoli, C. C., Abrams, R. A., & Witt, J. K. (2013). The World within reach: Effects of hand posture and tool use on visual cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science,22(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412465065.CrossRef

Bush, W. S., & Vecera, S. P. (2014). Differential effect of one versus two hands on visual processing. Cognition,133(1), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.014.CrossRefPubMed

Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W. (2014). Conceptual response distance and intervening keys distinguish action goals in the Stroop color-identification task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,21(5), 1238–1243. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0605-6.CrossRef

Davoli, C. C., & Abrams, R. A. (2009). Reaching out with the imagination. Psychological Science,20(3), 293–295.CrossRef

Davoli, C. C., & Brockmole, J. R. (2012). The hands shield attention from visual interference. Attention Perception & Psychophysics,74(7), 1386–1390. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0351-7.CrossRef

Davoli, C. C., Brockmole, J. R., Du, F., & Abrams, R. A. (2012). Switching between global and local scopes of attention is resisted near the hands. Visual Cognition,20(6), 659–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2012.683049.CrossRef

Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Montana, J., Garverick, S., & Abrams, R. A. (2010). When meaning matters, look but don’t touch: The effects of posture on reading. Memory & Cognition,38(5), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.3758/Mc.38.5.555.CrossRef

Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience,8(12), 1784–1790. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1594.CrossRefPubMed

Englert, J., & Wentura, D. (2016). Hand posture and cognitive control: The congruency sequence effect is reduced near the hands. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1000-2.CrossRef

Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007). Controlling attention through action: observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologia,45(14), 3351–3355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.012.CrossRefPubMed

Feng, S. F., Schwemmer, M., Gershman, S. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2014). Multitasking versus multiplexing: Toward a normative account of limitations in the simultaneous execution of control-demanding behaviors. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience,14(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0236-9.CrossRef

Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). Predicting high levels of multitasking reduces between-tasks interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,41(6), 1482–1487. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000157.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, R., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). Shielding and relaxation in multitasking: Prospect of reward counteracts relaxation of task shielding in multitasking. Acta Psychologica,191, 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.09.002.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,40(2), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034310.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, R., & Hommel, B. (2012). Deep thinking increases task-set shielding and reduces shifting flexibility in dual-task performance. Cognition,123, 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.015.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, R., Miller, J., & Schubert, T. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition,35(7), 1685–1699.CrossRef

Fischer, R., & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking: Parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 1366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01366.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Garza, J. P., Strom, M. J., Wright, C. E., Roberts, R. J., Jr., & Reed, C. L. (2013). Top-down influences mediate hand bias in spatial attention. Attention Perception & Psychophysics,75(5), 819–823.CrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., & Clarke, R. (2016). Contributions of parvocellular and magnocellular pathways to visual perception near the hands are not fixed, but can be dynamically altered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,23(1), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0844-1.CrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., Edwards, M., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2015). Altered visual perception near the hands: A critical review of attentional and neurophysiological models. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,55, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.05.006.CrossRefPubMed

Goodhew, S. C., Fogel, N., & Pratt, J. (2014). The nature of altered vision near the hands: evidence for the magnocellular enhancement account from object correspondence through occlusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,21(6), 1452–1458. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0622-5.CrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., Gozli, D. G., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2013). Reduced temporal fusion in near-hand space. Psychological Science,24(6), 891–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612463402.CrossRefPubMed

Gothe, K., Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2016). Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings. Cognition,150, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.003.CrossRefPubMed

Gozli, D. G., West, G. L., & Pratt, J. (2012). Hand position alters vision by biasing processing through different visual pathways. Cognition,124(2), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.008.CrossRefPubMed

Graziano, M. S., & Gross, C. G. (1995). From eye to hand. In J. King & K. H. Pribram (Eds.), Scale in conscious experience: Is the brain too important to be left to specialists to study? (pp. 117–129). Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Graziano, M. S., & Gross, C. G. (1998). Spatial maps for the control of movement. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,8(2), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(98)80140-2.CrossRefPubMed

Graziano, M. S., Yap, G. S., & Gross, C. G. (1994). Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. Science,266(5187), 1054–1057.CrossRef

Halvorson, K. M., Ebner, H., & Hazeltine, E. (2013). Investigating perfect timesharing: the relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,39(2), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029475.CrossRefPubMed

Halvorson, K. M., & Hazeltine, E. (2015). Do small dual-task costs reflect ideomotor compatibility or the absence of crosstalk? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,22(5), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0813-8.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,24(5), 1368–1384.PubMed

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,24(5), 849–878. (discussion 878-937).CrossRef

Hosang, T. J., Fischer, R., Pomp, J., & Liepelt, R. (2018). Multitasking in the near-hand space: Effects of stimulus–hand proximity on between-task shifts at the bottleneck. Frontiers in Psychology.

Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport,7(14), 2325–2330.CrossRef

Janczyk, M. (2016). Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,42(5), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000170.CrossRefPubMed

Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition,132(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001.CrossRefPubMed

Janczyk, M., Renas, S., & Durst, M. (2017). Identifying the locus of compatibility-based backward crosstalk: Evidence from an extended PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000445.CrossRefPubMed

Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: evidence from manipulating response-code overlap. Psychological Research,73(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0152-8.CrossRefPubMed

Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.CrossRef

Lakens, D., Schneider, I. K., Jostmann, N. B., & Schubert, T. W. (2011). Telling things apart: The distance between response keys influences categorization times. Psychological Science,22(7), 887–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976114123910956797611412391.CrossRefPubMed

Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current Directions in Psychological Science,19(3), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410370295.CrossRef

Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9(2), 212–238.CrossRef

Liepelt, R., & Fischer, R. (2016). Task demands determine hand posture bias on conflict processing in a Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,23(2), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0901-9.CrossRef

Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review,108(2), 393–434.CrossRef

Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,26(3), 1072–1090.PubMed

Maquestiaux, F., Ruthruff, E., Defer, A., & Ibrahime, S. (2018). Dual-task automatization: The key role of sensory-motor modality compatibility. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics,80(3), 752–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1469-4.CrossRef

Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences,8(2), 79–86.CrossRef

Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review,104(1), 3–65.CrossRef

Miller, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research,70(6), 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0011-9.CrossRefPubMed

Miller, J., & Reynolds, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,29(6), 1126–1142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.11262003-09958-003.CrossRefPubMed

Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,13(3), 435–448.PubMed

Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology,44(3), 193–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0767S0010028501907674.CrossRefPubMed

Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2012). Better not to deal with two tasks at the same time when stressed? Acute psychosocial stress reduces task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience,12(3), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0098-6.CrossRef

Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2017). Successful voluntary recruitment of cognitive control under acute stress. Cognition,168, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.016.CrossRefPubMed

Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches. Springer: New York.

Reed, C. L., Betz, R., Garza, J. P., & Roberts, R. J. (2010). Grab it! Biased attention in functional hand and tool space. Attention Perception & Psychophysics,72(1), 236–245. https://doi.org/10.3758/App.72.1.236.CrossRef

Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., & Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: Attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,32(1), 166–177.PubMed

Schendel, K., & Robertson, L. C. (2004). Reaching out to see: Arm position can attenuate human visual loss. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,16(6), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041502698.CrossRefPubMed

Scherbaum, S., Gottschalk, C., Dshemuchadse, M., & Fischer, R. (2015). Action dynamics in multitasking: The impact of additional task factors on the execution of the prioritized motor movement. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 934. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00934.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,34(2), 376–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.376.CrossRefPubMed

Schultheis, H., & Carlson, L. A. (2013). Determinants of attentional modulation near the hands. Frontiers in Psychology,4, 858. https://doi.org/10.3389/Fpsyg.2013.00858.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stelzel, C., Brandt, S. A., & Schubert, T. (2009). Neural mechanisms of concurrent stimulus processing in dual tasks. Neuroimage,48(1), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.064.CrossRefPubMed

Stelzel, C., & Schubert, T. (2011). Interference effects of stimulus-response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness. Psychological Research,75(6), 476–490.CrossRef

Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,36(4), 1075–1081.CrossRef

Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research,75(6), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0353-4.CrossRefPubMed

Taylor, J. E., Gozli, D. G., Chan, D., Huffman, G., & Pratt, J. (2015). A touchy subject: advancing the modulated visual pathways account of altered vision near the hand. Translational Neuroscience,6(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/tnsci-2015-0001.CrossRefPubMed

Taylor, J. E., & Witt, J. K. (2014). Altered attention for stimuli on the hands. Cognition,133(1), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.019.CrossRefPubMed

Thomas, L. E. (2015). Grasp posture alters visual processing biases near the hands. Psychological Science,26(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571418.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Thomson, S. J., Danis, L. K., & Watter, S. (2014). PRP training shows Task1 response selection is the locus of the backward response compatibility effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 15. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0660-z.CrossRef

Tseng, P., & Bridgeman, B. (2011). Improved change detection with nearby hands. Experimental Brain Research,209(2), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2544-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Weidler, B. J., & Abrams, R. A. (2014). Enhanced cognitive control near the hands. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,21(2), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0514-0.CrossRef

Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2012). Conflict-induced perceptual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,38(3), 675–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0025902.CrossRefPubMed

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9(4), 625–636.CrossRef

Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,34(6), 1479–1492. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0010781.CrossRefPubMed

Zwosta, K., Hommel, B., Goschke, T., & Fischer, R. (2013). Mood states determine the degree of task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognition and Emotion,27(6), 1142–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.772047.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Embodied cognition in multitasking: increased hand-specific task shielding when stimuli are presented near the hand
Auteurs: Rico Fischer
Roman Liepelt
Publicatiedatum: 12-04-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01174-6

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2020

Wikipedia outperforms individuals when it comes to hindsight bias

Musical dynamics in early triadic interactions: a case study

Silent shapes and shapeless sounds: the robustness of the diminished crossmodal correspondences effect in autism spectrum conditions

Dissociative associative-memory deficit as a function of primacy and recency effects

Attribution of vision and knowledge in ‘spontaneous perspective taking’

Does watching Han Solo or C-3PO similarly influence our language processing?