Abstract
Response-related mechanisms of multitasking were studied by analyzing simultaneous processing of responses in different modalities (i.e., crossmodal action). Participants responded to a single auditory stimulus with a saccade, a manual response (single-task conditions), or both (dual-task condition). We used a spatially incompatible stimulus-response mapping for one task, but not for the other. Critically, inverting these mappings varied temporal task overlap in dual-task conditions while keeping spatial incompatibility across responses constant. Unlike previous paradigms, temporal task overlap was manipulated without utilizing sequential stimulus presentation, which might induce strategic serial processing. The results revealed dual-task costs, but these were not affected by an increase of temporal task overlap. This finding is evidence for parallel response selection in multitasking. We propose that crossmodal action is processed by a central mapping-selection mechanism in working memory and that the dual-task costs are mainly caused by mapping-related crosstalk.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bekkering, H., Adam, J. J., Kingma, H., Huson, A., &Whiting, H. T. A. (1994). Reaction time latencies of eye and hand movements in single- and dual-task conditions.Experimental Brain Research,97, 471–476.
Byrne, M. D., &Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing.Psychological Review,108, 847–869.
Dunbar, K., &MacLeod, C. M. (1984). A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 622–639.
Duncan, J. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 216–228.
Fagot, C., &Pashler, H. (1992). Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 1058–1079.
Gottsdanker, R. (1979). A psychological refractory period or an unprepared period?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 208–215.
Hancock, P. A., Oron-Gilad, T., &Szalma, J. L. (2007). Elaborations of the multiple-resource theory of attention. In A. F. Kramer, D. A. Wiegmann, & A. Kirlik (Eds.),Attention: From theory to practice (pp. 45–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., &Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dualtask performance reveals parallel response selection after practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 527–545.
Herman, L. M., &Kantowitz, B. H. (1970). The psychological refractory period effect: Only half the double-stimulation story?Psychological Bulletin,73, 74–88.
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dualtask performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1368–1384.
Huestegge, L., &Koch, I. (2009). Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,35, 352–362.
Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: Evidence from manipulating response-code overlap.Psychological Research,73, 417–424.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 253–270.
Lien, M.-C., &Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 212–238.
Logan, G. D., &Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations.Psychological Review,108, 393–434.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.Psychological Bulletin,109, 163–203.
Marois, R., &Ivanoff, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,9, 296–305.
Mather, J. A., &Fisk, J. D. (1985). Orienting to targets by looking and pointing: Parallels and interactions in ocular and manual performance.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37A, 315–338.
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.
Miller, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on firsttask response latencies.Psychological Research,70, 484–493.
Navon, D., &Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 435–448.
Navon, D., &Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion.Cognitive Psychology,44, 193–251.
Oberauer, K. (2005). Binding and inhibition in working memory: Individual and age differences in short-term recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,134, 368–387.
Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 358–377.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory.Psychological Bulletin,116, 220–244.
Pashler, H., Carrier, M., &Hoffman, J. (1993). Saccadic eye movements and dual-task interference.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,46A, 51–82.
Posner, M. I., &Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Proctor, R. W., &Vu, K.-P. L. (2009). Determinants of the benefit for consistent stimulus-response mappings in dual-task performance of four-choice tasks.Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics,71, 734–756.
Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., &Remington, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 280–289.
Salvucci, D. D., &Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking.Psychological Review,115, 101–130.
Sanders, A. F. (1998).Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spence, C., &Driver, J. (Eds.) (2004).Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 643–662.
Tombu, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 3–18.
Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects.Cognitive Psychology,57, 75–121.
Vu, K.-P. L., &Proctor, R. W. (2006). Emergent perceptual features in the benefit of consistent stimulus-response mappings on dual-task performance.Psychological Research,70, 468–483.
Welford, A. T. (1952). The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high-speed performance—A review and a theory.British Journal of Psychology,43, 2–19.
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.),Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huestegge, L., Koch, I. Crossmodal action selection: Evidence from dual-task compatibility. Memory & Cognition 38, 493–501 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.4.493
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.4.493