Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The present study was aimed at examining modality-specific influences in task switching. To this end, participants switched either between modality compatible tasks (auditory–vocal and visual–manual) or incompatible spatial discrimination tasks (auditory–manual and visual–vocal). In addition, auditory and visual stimuli were presented simultaneously (i.e., bimodally) in each trial, so that selective attention was required to process the task-relevant stimulus. The inclusion of bimodal stimuli enabled us to assess congruence effects as a converging measure of increased between-task interference. The tasks followed a pre-instructed sequence of double alternations (AABB), so that no explicit task cues were required. The results show that switching between two modality incompatible tasks increases both switch costs and congruence effects compared to switching between two modality compatible tasks. The finding of increased congruence effects in modality incompatible tasks supports our explanation in terms of ideomotor “backward” linkages between anticipated response effects and the stimuli that called for this response in the first place. According to this generalized ideomotor idea, the modality match between response effects and stimuli would prime selection of a response in the compatible modality. This priming would cause increased difficulties to ignore the competing stimulus and hence increases the congruence effect. Moreover, performance would be hindered when switching between modality incompatible tasks and facilitated when switching between modality compatible tasks.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.
Bruyer, R., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: is the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)? Psychologica Belgica, 51, 5–13. CrossRef
Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227. CrossRef
Hirst, W. & Kalmar, D. (1987). Characterizing attentional resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 68–81. doi: 10.1037/0096-34126.96.36.199.
Hughes, M. M., Linck, J. A., Bowles, A. R., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Alternatives to switch-cost scoring in the task-switching paradigm: Their reliability and increased validity. Behavior Research Methods, in press. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0411-5.
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, CA: Sage Publications. CrossRef
Koch, I. (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.
Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 192–201. doi: 10.1037/0096-15188.8.131.52.
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
Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072–1090. doi: 10.1037/0096-15184.108.40.2062.
McLeod, P. & Posner, M.I. (1984). Privileged loops from percept to act. In H. Bouma & D. Bowhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X (pp. 55–66). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Navon, D. (1984). Resources—A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 2, 216–234. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.91.2.216.
Navon, D. (1985). Attention division or attention sharing? In M. Posner & M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and Performance XI (pp. 133–146). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435–448. doi: 10.1037/0096-15220.127.116.115.
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.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154. CrossRef
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus- response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and practice. Boca-Raton, FL: 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
Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C., & Kleinsorge, T. (2000). Specification of movement amplitudes fort he left and right hands: Evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1091–1101. doi: 10.1037/0096-1518.104.22.1681
Stephan, D.N., & Koch, I. (2015). Tactile stimuli increase effects of modality compatibility in task switching. Experimental Psychology. in press.
Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304–319. CrossRef
Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus–response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201–1217.
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.
- Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation
Denise Nadine Stephan
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg