Top

Gepubliceerd in:

27-09-2017 | Original Article

Sources of interference in cross-modal action: response selection, crosstalk, and general dual-execution costs

Auteurs: Aleks Pieczykolan, Lynn Huestegge

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2018

Abstract

Performing several actions simultaneously usually yields interference, which is commonly explained by referring to theoretical concepts such as crosstalk and structural limitations associated with response selection. While most research focuses on dual-task scenarios (involving two independent tasks), we here study the role of response selection and crosstalk for the control of cross-modal response compounds (saccades and manual responses) triggered by a single stimulus. In two experiments, participants performed single responses and spatially compatible versus incompatible dual-response compounds (crosstalk manipulation) in conditions with or without response selection requirements (i.e., responses either changed randomly between trials or were constantly repeated within a block). The results showed that substantial crosstalk effects were only present when response (compound) selection was required, not when a pre-selected response compound was merely repeated throughout a block of trials. We suggest that cross-response crosstalk operates on the level of response selection (during the activation of response codes), not on the level of response execution (when participants can rely on pre-activated response codes). Furthermore, we observed substantial residual dual-response costs even when neither response incompatibility nor response selection requirements were present. This suggests additional general dual-execution interference that occurs on a late, execution-related processing stage and even for two responses in rather distinct (manual and oculomotor) output modules. Generally, the results emphasize the importance of considering oculomotor interference in theorizing on multiple-action control.

vorige artikel Flexibility of individual multitasking strategies in task-switching with preview: are preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing dependent on between-task conflict?

volgende artikel Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality

We decided to report here the direct comparison of the incompatible conditions from both experiments. Additionally, we computed an analysis including the R–R incompatible condition of Experiment 2 with the R–R compatible condition of Experiment 1 (analogous to Experiment 1 analyses). The results do not contradict the findings in Experiment 1. Importantly, our main finding in Experiment 1, namely the interaction of response condition, RS, and R–R compatibility, was replicated showing that crosstalk has a larger impact on dual-response interference under increased RS demands and therefore operates rather on the level of RS than on the level of response execution.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403.CrossRefPubMed

Berlyne, D. E. (1957). Uncertainty and conflict: A point of contact between information-theory and behavior-theory concepts. Psychological Review, 64, 329–339.CrossRefPubMed

Broadbent, D. E., & Gregory, M. (1967). Psychological refractory period and the length of time required to make a decision. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 168, 181–193.CrossRefPubMed

Christina, R. W., Fischman, M. G., Vercruyssen, M. J. P., & Anson, J. G. (1982). Simple reaction time as a function of response complexity: Memory drum theory revisited. Journal of Motor Behavior, 74, 301–321.CrossRef

Danek, R. H., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2011). Unequal motor durations under simple-, go/no-go, and choice-RT tasks: Extension of Miller and Low (2001). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1323–1329.PubMed

Donders, F. C. (1869). Over de snelheid van psychische processen. Translated (1969): On the speed of mental processes. Acta Psychologica, 30, 412–431.CrossRef

Ellenbogen, R., & Meiran, N. (2010). Objects and events as determinants of parallel processing in dual tasks: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 152–167.

Fagot, C., & Pashler, H. (1992). Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1058–1079.PubMed

Garry, M. I., & Franks, I. M. (2000). Reaction time differences in spatially constrained bilateral and unilateral movements. Experimental Brain Research, 131, 236–243.CrossRefPubMed

Herman, L. M., & Kantowitz, B. H. (1970). The psychological refractory period effect: Only half the double-stimulation story? Psychological Bulletin, 73, 74–88.CrossRef

Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.CrossRef

Holender, D. (1980). Interference between a vocal and a manual response to the same stimulus. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 421–431). Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368–1384.PubMed

Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66, 260–273.CrossRefPubMed

Huestegge, L. (2011). The role of saccades in multitasking: Towards an output-related view of eye movements. Psychological Research, 75, 452–465.CrossRefPubMed

Huestegge, L., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Crossmodal action: Modality matters. Psychological Research, 75, 445–451.CrossRefPubMed

Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2009). Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 352–562.PubMed

Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2010). Crossmodal action selection: Evidence from dual-task compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 38, 493–501.CrossRef

Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2013). Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 633–637.CrossRef

Huestegge, L., Pieczykolan, A., & Koch, I. (2014). Talking while looking: On the encapsulation of output system representations. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 72–91.CrossRefPubMed

Janczyk, M. (2016). Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 631–647.PubMed

Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response-from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132, 30–43.CrossRefPubMed

Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167–178.CrossRefPubMed

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.

Kveraga, K., Boucher, L., & Hughes, H. C. (2002). Saccades operate in violation of Hick’s law. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 307–314.CrossRefPubMed

Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1260–1280.PubMed

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.CrossRef

Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Miller, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research, 70, 484–493.CrossRefPubMed

Miller, J., & Alderton, M. (2006). Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 149–165.PubMed

Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214–255.CrossRef

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

Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193–251.CrossRefPubMed

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

Pieczykolan, A., & Huestegge, L. (2014). Oculomotor dominance in multitasking: Mechanisms of conflict resolution in cross-modal action. Journal of Vision, 14, 1–17.CrossRef

Pieczykolan, A., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Cross-modal action complexity: Action- and rule-related memory retrieval in dual-response control. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 529.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Reynolds, D. (1966). Time and event uncertainty in unisensory reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 286–293.CrossRefPubMed

Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltá, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40.CrossRefPubMed

Schneider, W. X., & Deubel, H. (2002). Selection-for-perception and selection-for-spatial-motor-action are coupled by visual attention: A review of recent findings and new evidence from stimulus-driven saccade control. Attention and Performance XIX: Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action, 19, 609–627.

Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 408–425.

Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 376–397.PubMed

Thomson, S. J., Watter, S., & Finkelshtein, A. (2010). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations via automatic category-to-response translation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1791–1802.CrossRef

Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual- task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18.PubMed

Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 254–277.CrossRef

Titel: Sources of interference in cross-modal action: response selection, crosstalk, and general dual-execution costs
Auteurs: Aleks Pieczykolan
Lynn Huestegge
Publicatiedatum: 27-09-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0923-1

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2018

Task intentions and their implementation into actions: cognitive control from adolescence to middle adulthood

Shifting the set of stimulus selection when switching between tasks

Game-based training of flexibility and attention improves task-switch performance: near and far transfer of cognitive training in an EEG study

“Optimal suppression” as a solution to the paradoxical cost of multitasking: examination of suppression specificity in task switching

Flexibility of individual multitasking strategies in task-switching with preview: are preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing dependent on between-task conflict?

Motor-cognitive dual-task performance: effects of a concurrent motor task on distinct components of visual processing capacity