Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
This research was supported by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, KO 2045/19-1). DFG Priority Program (Schwerpunktprogramm) SPP 1772. The authors would like to thank Edita Poljac, Lea Hald, Wilfried Kunde, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. Thanks also go to Maximilan Richter for his help in conducting the experiments.
The term modality compatibility refers to the similarity between the stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences. Previous research showed evidence for modality compatibility benefits in task switching, when participants switch either between two modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) or between two modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal). However, it remained unclear whether there is also a modality compatibility benefit when participants switch between a modality compatible and an incompatible task. To this end, in Experiment 1, we kept the same design as in earlier studies, so participants had to switch either between modality compatible or modality incompatible spatial discrimination tasks, but in Experiment 2A, participants switched at the response level (manual/vocal) while we kept the stimulus modality constant across tasks, and in Experiment 2B, they switched at the stimulus level (visual/auditory) while we kept the response modality constant across tasks. We found increased switch costs in modality incompatible tasks in Experiment 1, but no such a difference between modality compatible and incompatible tasks in Experiment 2A and 2B, supporting the idea that modality incompatible tasks increase crosstalk, due to the response-based priming of the competing task, but this crosstalk is reduced if the competing task involves either the same stimulus modality or the same response modality. We conclude that a significant impact of modality compatibility in task switching requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Colavita, F. B. (1974). Human sensory dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 409–412. CrossRef
Hazeltine, E., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Understanding central processes: the case against simple stimulus-response associations and for complex task representation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation, 62 (pp. 195–245). Cambridge: Academic Press.
Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227. CrossRef
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2, chapter XXVI). New York: Holt.
Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. CrossRef
Paelecke, M., & Kunde, W. (2007). Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: evidence from the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 627–644. PubMed
Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358–377. PubMed
Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: control of cognitive processes (pp. 277–307). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1325–1338. CrossRef
Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). The integration of task-set components into cognitive task representations. Psychologica Belgica, 50, 383–411. CrossRef
Ragot, R., Cave, C., & Fano, M. (1988). Reciprocal effects of visual and auditory stimuli in a spatial compatibility situation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 350–352. CrossRef
Schaeffner, S., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2016). Semantic effects on sensory-motor modality switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 726–742. CrossRef
Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C., & Kleinsorge, T. (2000). Specification of movement amplitudes for the left and right hands: evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1091–1101. PubMed
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). New York: Academic Press.
- Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality
Denise N. Stephan
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg