Top

Gepubliceerd in:

03-06-2017 | Original Article

The role of feedback delay in dual-task performance

Auteurs: Wilfried Kunde, Robert Wirth, Markus Janczyk

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2018

Abstract

Doing two things at once is hard, and it is probably hard for various reasons. Here we aim to demonstrate that one so far barely considered reason is the monitoring of sensory action feedback, which detracts from processing of other concurrent tasks. To demonstrate this, we engaged participants in a psychological refractory period paradigm. The responses in the two tasks produced visual action effects. These effects occurred either immediately or they were delayed for the first of the two responses. We assumed that delaying these effects would engage a process of monitoring visual feedback longer, and delay a concurrent task more, as compared to immediate effects. This prediction was confirmed in two experiments. We discuss the reasons for feedback monitoring and its possible contribution to dual tasking.

vorige artikel Action control in task switching: do action effects modulate N − 2 repetition costs in task switching?

volgende artikel Effects of trying ‘not to move’ instruction on cortical load and concurrent cognitive performance

A between experiments ANOVA for RT2 with the factors SOA, effect delay and experiment revealed significant effects of the factors SOA F(1,29) = 377.98, p < 0.001, η_p ² = 0.93, effect delay, F(1,29) = 14.54, p = 0.001, η_p ² = 0.33, and experiment, F(1,29) = 5.09, p = 0.031, η_p ² = 0.15. The interaction of experiment and effect delay missed conventional levels of significance F(1,29) = 3.59, p = 0.068, η_p ² = 0.11, and so did the triple interaction of all three main effects F(1,29) = 3.03, p = 0.092, η_p ² = 0.09.

Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3(2), 111–150.CrossRefPubMed

Band, G. P., van Steenbergen, H., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Falkenstein, M., & Hommel, B. (2009). Action-effect negativity: irrelevant action effects are monitored like relevant feedback. Biological Psychology, 82(3), 211–218.CrossRefPubMed

Bratzke, D., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2009). The source of execution-related dual-task interference: motor bottleneck or response monitoring? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1413–1426.PubMed

Bratzke, D., Ulrich, R., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., Jentzsch, I., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(9), 1385–1399.CrossRefPubMed

De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965–980.PubMed

Dignath, D. & Janczyk, M. Psychological Research (2016). doi:10.1007/s00426-016-0797-7

Dignath, D., Pfister, R., Eder, A. B., Kiesel, A., & Kunde, W. (2014). Representing the hyphen in action–effect associations: automatic acquisition and bidirectional retrieval of action–effect intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1701–1712.CrossRefPubMed

Dutzi, I. B., & Hommel, B. (2009). The microgenesis of action–effect binding. Psychological Research, 73(3), 425–435.CrossRefPubMed

Haggard, P., Clark, S., & Kalogeras, J. (2002). Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 5(4), 382–385.CrossRefPubMed

Harleß, E. (1861). Der Apparat des Willens [The apparatus of will]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 38, 50–73.

Hoffmann, J., Berner, M., Butz, M. V., Herbort, O., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Lenhard, A. (2007). Explorations of anticipatory behavioral control (ABC): a report from the cognitive psychology unit of the University of Würzburg. Cognitive Processing, 8(2), 133–142.CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B., Muesseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.CrossRefPubMed

Janczyk, M. (2016a). Die Rolle von Handlungszielen bei der Entstehung von Doppelaufgabenkosten [The role of action goals for dual-task-interference]. Psychologische Rundschau, 67, 237–249.CrossRef

Janczyk, M. (2016b). 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., Durst, M., & Ulrich, R. (2016). Action selection by temporally distal goal-states. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1096-4.

Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2014). The role of effect grouping in free-choice response selection. Acta Psychologica, 150, 49–54.CrossRefPubMed

Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Crognale, M., & Kunde, W. (2012). Effective rotations: action–effects determine the interplay of mental and manual rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 489–501.CrossRef

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

Janczyk, M., Skirde, S., Weigelt, M., & Kunde, W. (2009). Visual and tactile action effects determine bimanual coordination performance. Human Movement Science, 28, 437–449.CrossRefPubMed

Keele, S. W. (1973). Attention and human performance. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.

Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.PubMed

Kunde, W., Elsner, K., & Kiesel, A. (2007). No anticipation—no action. The role of anticipation in action and perception. Cognitive Processing, 8, 71–78.CrossRefPubMed

Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749–791. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.749.CrossRef

Metcalfe, J., Eich, T. S., & Castel, A. D. (2010). Metacognition of agency across the lifespan. Cognition, 116(2), 267–282.CrossRefPubMed

Michotte, A.E. (1963). The perception of causality (trans: Miles, T.R., & Miles, E.). London: Methuen (Original published in 1946).

Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 273–310.CrossRefPubMed

Moeller, B., Pfister, R., Kunde, W., & Frings, C. (2016). A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(4), 1074–1086.CrossRef

Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44(3), 193–251.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMed

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.CrossRefPubMed

Pashler, H., & Christian, C. L. (1994). Bottlenecks in planning and producing vocal, manual, and foot responses. Center for Human Information Processing Technical Report.

Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(1), 19–45.CrossRef

Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9, 74–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 1–36.CrossRef

Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18.PubMed

Ulrich, R., Ruiz Fernandez, S., Jentzsch, I., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., & Leuthold, H. (2006). Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions. Psychological Science, 17, 788–793.CrossRefPubMed

Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43(1), 2–19.CrossRef

Wirth, R., Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2016). Effect monitoring in dual tasking. Manuscript Submitted For Publication.

Wirth, R., Pfister, R., Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2015). Through the portal: effect anticipation in the central bottleneck. Acta Psychologica, 160, 141–151.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The role of feedback delay in dual-task performance
Auteurs: Wilfried Kunde
Robert Wirth
Markus Janczyk
Publicatiedatum: 03-06-2017
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/s00426-017-0874-6

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2018

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

New perspectives on human multitasking

Assessing the role of reward in task selection using a reward-based voluntary task switching paradigm

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

The dynamic balance between cognitive flexibility and stability: the influence of local changes in reward expectation and global task context on voluntary switch rate

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