Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2011 | Original Article

The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching

Auteurs: Denise Nadine Stephan, Iring Koch

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2011

Abstract

Input–output (I–O) modality compatibility refers to the similarity of stimulus modality and modality of response-related sensory consequences. A previous study found higher switch costs in task switching in I–O modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal) than in I–O modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual). However, these tasks had spatially compatible S–R mappings, which implied dimensional overlap (DO). DO may have led to automatic activation of the corresponding compatible responses in the incorrect response modality, thus increasing interference effects. The present study was aimed to examine the influence of DO on I–O modality compatibility effects. In two experiments, we found that I–O modality compatibility affects task switching even in tasks without DO, which even tended to result in further increased modality influences. This finding suggests that I–O modality mappings affect response selection by affecting between-task cross-talk not on the level of specific response codes but on the level of modality-specific processing pathways.

vorige artikel Interference effects of stimulus–response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness

volgende artikel Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task

Commonly, task-switching studies use bivalent stimuli (i.e., stimuli involving features relevant for both tasks), but clear switch costs have been found with univalent stimuli (i.e., stimuli involving features relevant to only one task), too (see e.g., Allport et al., 1994; Meiran, 2000; Rogers & Monsell, 1995, for a discussion).

Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Goschke, T. (2000). Involuntary persistence and intentional reconfiguration in task-set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.

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.PubMedCrossRef

Greenwald, A. G., & Shulman, H. G. (1973). On doing two things at once: II Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 70–76.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 455–472.

James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.PubMedCrossRef

Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: Evidence from manipulating response-set overlap. Psychological Research, 73, 417–424.PubMedCrossRef

Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching—A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14.CrossRef

Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus–stimulus compatibility. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 743–777). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.PubMedCrossRef

Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: Further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267.PubMedCrossRef

Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.CrossRef

Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234-249.

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, 3–65.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.PubMedCrossRef

Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1325–1338.

Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.

Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and practice. Boca-Raton: Taylor & Francis.

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.CrossRef

Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research, 70, 494–503.PubMedCrossRef

Schubotz, R. I., von Cramon, D. Y., & Lohmann, G. (2003). Auditory what, where, and when: a somatotopy in lateral premotor cortex. NeuroImage, 20, 173–185.PubMedCrossRef

Schumacher, E.H., Schwarb, H., Lightman, E., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0369-9

Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–947.PubMedCrossRef

Stelzel, C., & Schubert, T. (2011). Interference effects of stimulus-response modality pairings in dual tasks and their boundaries. Psychological Research (in press)

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching
Auteurs: Denise Nadine Stephan
Iring Koch
Publicatiedatum: 01-11-2011
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2011
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0353-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2011

Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance

Are there control processes, and (if so) can they be studied?

Interference effects of stimulus–response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness

The role of saccades in multitasking: towards an output-related view of eye movements

Searching working memory for the source of dual-task costs

Crossmodal action: modality matters