Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 1/2018

03-06-2017 | Original Article

Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality

Auteurs: Edina Fintor, Denise N. Stephan, Iring Koch

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2018

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

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.
Literatuur
go back to reference Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639. CrossRefPubMed Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Badets, A., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2016). A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis. Psychological Research, 80, 1–15. CrossRefPubMed Badets, A., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2016). A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis. Psychological Research, 80, 1–15. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Colavita, F. B. (1974). Human sensory dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 409–412. CrossRef Colavita, F. B. (1974). Human sensory dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 409–412. CrossRef
go back to reference Göthe, 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. CrossRefPubMed Göthe, 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. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Greenwald, A. G. (1970). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 20–25. CrossRefPubMed Greenwald, A. G. (1970). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 20–25. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57. CrossRefPubMed Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345. CrossRefPubMed Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227. CrossRef Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227. CrossRef
go back to reference Hunt, A. R., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Multisensory executive functioning. Brain and Cognition, 55, 325–327. CrossRefPubMed Hunt, A. R., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Multisensory executive functioning. Brain and Cognition, 55, 325–327. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2, chapter XXVI). New York: Holt. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2, chapter XXVI). New York: Holt.
go back to reference Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. CrossRef Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. CrossRef
go back to reference Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. CrossRefPubMed Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: evidence from manipulating response-set overlap. Psychological Research, 73, 417–424. CrossRefPubMed Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: evidence from manipulating response-set overlap. Psychological Research, 73, 417–424. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Kreutzfeldt, M., Stephan, D. N., Sturm, W., Willmes, K., & Koch, I. (2015). The role of crossmodal competition and dimensional overlap in crossmodal attention switching. Acta Psychologica, 155, 67–76. CrossRefPubMed Kreutzfeldt, M., Stephan, D. N., Sturm, W., Willmes, K., & Koch, I. (2015). The role of crossmodal competition and dimensional overlap in crossmodal attention switching. Acta Psychologica, 155, 67–76. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situation. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434. CrossRefPubMed Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situation. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267. CrossRefPubMed Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500. CrossRefPubMed Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Murray, M. M., De Santis, L., Thut, G., & Wylie, G. R. (2009). The costs of crossing paths and switching tasks between audition and vision. Brain and Cognition, 69, 47–55. CrossRefPubMed Murray, M. M., De Santis, L., Thut, G., & Wylie, G. R. (2009). The costs of crossing paths and switching tasks between audition and vision. Brain and Cognition, 69, 47–55. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference 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. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358–377. PubMed
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1325–1338. CrossRef Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1325–1338. CrossRef
go back to reference Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). The integration of task-set components into cognitive task representations. Psychologica Belgica, 50, 383–411. CrossRef Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). The integration of task-set components into cognitive task representations. Psychologica Belgica, 50, 383–411. CrossRef
go back to reference Philipp, A. M., Weidner, R., Koch, I., & Fink, G. R. (2013). Differential roles of inferior frontal and inferior parietal cortex in task switching: evidence from stimulus-categorization switching and response-modality switching. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 1910–1920. CrossRefPubMed Philipp, A. M., Weidner, R., Koch, I., & Fink, G. R. (2013). Differential roles of inferior frontal and inferior parietal cortex in task switching: evidence from stimulus-categorization switching and response-modality switching. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 1910–1920. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157–171. CrossRefPubMed Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157–171. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research, 70, 494–503. CrossRefPubMed Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research, 70, 494–503. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Sandhu, R., & Dyson, B. J. (2012). Re-evaluating visual and auditory dominance through modality switching costs and congruency analyses. Acta Psychologica, 140, 111–118. CrossRefPubMed Sandhu, R., & Dyson, B. J. (2012). Re-evaluating visual and auditory dominance through modality switching costs and congruency analyses. Acta Psychologica, 140, 111–118. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Schaeffner, S., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). The role of sensory-motor modality compatibility in language processing. Psychological Research, 80, 212–223. CrossRefPubMed Schaeffner, S., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). The role of sensory-motor modality compatibility in language processing. Psychological Research, 80, 212–223. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Schaeffner, S., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2016). Semantic effects on sensory-motor modality switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 726–742. CrossRef Schaeffner, S., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2016). Semantic effects on sensory-motor modality switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 726–742. CrossRef
go back to reference Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–947. CrossRefPubMed Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–947. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D’Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility in dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 514–525. CrossRefPubMed Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D’Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility in dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 514–525. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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, 1075–1081. CrossRefPubMed 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, 1075–1081. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75, 491–498. CrossRefPubMed Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75, 491–498. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2015). Tactile stimuli increase effects of modality compatibility in task switching. Experimental Psychology, 62, 276–284. CrossRefPubMed Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2015). Tactile stimuli increase effects of modality compatibility in task switching. Experimental Psychology, 62, 276–284. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2016). Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation. Psychological Research, 80, 935–943. CrossRefPubMed Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2016). Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation. Psychological Research, 80, 935–943. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Stephan, D. N., Koch, I., Hendler, J., & Huestegge, L. (2013). Task switching, modality compatibility and the supra-modal function of eye movements. Experimental Psychology, 60, 90–99. CrossRefPubMed Stephan, D. N., Koch, I., Hendler, J., & Huestegge, L. (2013). Task switching, modality compatibility and the supra-modal function of eye movements. Experimental Psychology, 60, 90–99. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626. CrossRefPubMed Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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. 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.
Metagegevens
Titel
Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality
Auteurs
Edina Fintor
Denise N. Stephan
Iring Koch
Publicatiedatum
03-06-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0875-5