Abstract
Abstract. Modality compatibility refers to the similarity of stimulus modality and modality of response-related sensory consequences. Previous dual-task studies found increased switch costs for modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual/visual-vocal) compared to modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal/visual-manual). The present task-switching study further examined modality compatibility and investigated vibrotactile stimulation as a novel alternative to visual stimulation. Interestingly, a stronger modality compatibility effect on switch costs was revealed for the group with tactile-auditory stimulation compared to the visual-auditory stimulation group. We suggest that the modality compatibility effect is based on crosstalk of central processing codes due to ideomotor “backward” linkages between the anticipated response effects and the stimuli indicating this response. This crosstalk is increased in the tactile-auditory stimulus group compared to the visual-auditory stimulus group due to a higher degree of ideomotor-compatibility in the tactile-manual tasks. Since crosstalk arises between tasks, performance is only affected in task switching and not in single tasks.
References
(1977).
The search for exceptions to the psychological refractory period . In S. DornicEd., Attention and Performance VI (pp. 63–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.(1995). Learning disabled and hearing-impaired. Independent Studies and Capstones, 348 Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine. Washington, DC: University.
(2006). Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 24–39.
(1999). Somethesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 305–331.
(2011). A critical speed for gating of tactile detection during voluntary movement. Experimental Brain Research, 210, 291–301.
(2008). Selection in touch: Negative priming with tactile stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 70, 516–523.
(1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.
(1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57.
(2003). On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 859–868.
(2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345.
(2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227.
(1978). Divided attention. Human Nature, 1, 54–61.
(2011). Crossmodal action: Modality matters. Psychological Research, 75, 445–451.
(1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Holt.
(2000). The physiology and psychology of selective attention in touch. Frontiers in Bioscience, 5, 894–904.
(2010). Control and interference in task switching – a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.
(2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: Evidence from manipulating response-set overlap. Psychological Research, 73, 417–424. doi: 10.1007/s00426-008-0152-8
(1959). Tactual choice reaction: I. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 76–83.
(1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3–65.
(1983). Tactile discrimination of gratings. Experimental Brain Research, 49, 291–299.
(1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435–448. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.435
(1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.
(1998). The Psychology of Attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.
(2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–947.
(1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4, 215–230.
(2002). Multisensory attention and tactile information-processing. Behavioral Brain Research, 135, 57–64.
(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.
(2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task-switching. Psychological Research, 75, 491–498.
(2013). Task switching, modality compatibility, and the supramodal function of eye movements. Experimental Psychology, 60, 90–99. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000175
(2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626.
(1980).
The structure of attentional resources . In R. NickersonEd., Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.(1984).
Processing resources in attention . In R. ParasuramanD. R. DaviesEds., Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). New York, NY: Academic Press.(2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50, 449–455.
(2002).
The latency of saccades toward auditory targets in humans . In J. HyönäD. P. MunozW. HeideR. RadachEds., Progress in brain research (140, pp. 51–59). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
