Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 6/2016

16-09-2015 | Original Article

Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation

Auteurs: Denise Nadine Stephan, Iring Koch

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2016

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 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.
Voetnoten
1
The overall error rates of three participants exceeded 20 % (20.9 %; 21.9 %; 25.3 %). Importantly, if these three participants were excluded, the two-way interaction between congruence and modality compatibility was still clearly significant, F(1, 28) = 9.398, p < .01, η p 2  = .251, indicating a larger congruence effect in modality incompatible tasks than in compatible tasks (10.4 vs. 6.3 %).
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839. Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.CrossRefPubMed Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.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 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 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. 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.
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, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRef Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: 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. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0152-8. 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.
go back to reference 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:10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.192. 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/​0096-1523.​28.​1.​192.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMed Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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:10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1072. 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/​0096-1523.​26.​3.​1072.
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 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. 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.
go back to reference Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 1023–1041.CrossRefPubMed Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 1023–1041.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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. (1985). Attention division or attention sharing? In M. Posner & M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and Performance XI (pp. 133–146). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
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. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.627.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. doi:10.​1037/​0096-1523.​33.​3.​627.PubMed
go back to reference Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.CrossRefPubMed Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.CrossRefPubMed
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 Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.CrossRef Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.CrossRef
go back to reference Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and practice. Boca-Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and practice. Boca-Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
go back to reference Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Set- and element-level stimulus–response compatibility effects for different manual response sets. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 351–365.CrossRefPubMed Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Set- and element-level stimulus–response compatibility effects for different manual response sets. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 351–365.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.CrossRef Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.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 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:10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1091 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/​0096-1523.​26.​3.​1091
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. in press. Stephan, D.N., & Koch, I. (2015). Tactile stimuli increase effects of modality compatibility in task switching. Experimental Psychology. in press.
go back to reference Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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 Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304–319.CrossRef Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304–319.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
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
Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation
Auteurs
Denise Nadine Stephan
Iring Koch
Publicatiedatum
16-09-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0700-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2016

Psychological Research 6/2016 Naar de uitgave