Identifying the Locus of Compatibility-Based Backward Crosstalk: Evidence From an Extended PRP Paradigm

The backward crosstalk effect (BCE) in dual tasking means that characteristics of Task 2 of 2 subsequently performed tasks influence Task 1 performance. This observation indicates that certain features of the second response are already activated to some degree before the first response is selected. Therefore, the BCE challenges bottleneck models, which assume that Task 2 response selection does not begin until Task 1 response selection is finished. Instead, an extended model with a capacity-unlimited response activation stage prior to the bottleneck as the locus of the BCE was suggested. To determine the exact locus of the BCE within the stages of task processing, 5 experiments were carried out. Experiments 1 to 4 were psychological refractory period-like experiments with 3 subsequent tasks. A prebottleneck locus of the BCE was ruled out in Experiments 1 to 3 by using the locus of slack logic. Additionally, a postbottleneck locus of the BCE was ruled out in Experiment 4 by using the effect propagation logic. To further support this latter conclusion, Experiment 5 applied a go-signal manipulation. Taken together, the results of all 5 experiments strongly suggest that the BCE has its locus in the capacity-limited stage, which contradicts the widely accepted notion that a capacity-unlimited stage of response activation preceding response selection proper is the locus of the BCE.

[1]  R Gottsdanker,et al.  Psychological refractoriness with varying differences between tasks. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Steven W. Keele,et al.  Attention and human performance , 1973 .

[4]  Moritz Durst,et al.  “Just do it when you get a chance”: the effects of a background task on primary task performance , 2014, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[5]  R. Job,et al.  The picture-word interference effect is not a Stroop effect , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies , 2006, Psychological research.

[7]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  The locus of the emotional Stroop effect: a study with the PRP paradigm. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[8]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  Response selection and response execution in task switching: evidence from a go-signal paradigm. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Late backward effects in the refractory period paradigm: effects of Task 2 execution on Task 1 performance , 2010, Psychological research.

[10]  B. Hommel Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  The locus of tool-transformation costs. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  R avid Ell Working memory involvement in dual-task performance: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect , 2008 .

[13]  G. Logan Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Visual and tactile action effects determine bimanual coordination performance. , 2009, Human movement science.

[15]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[16]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  H Pashler,et al.  Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  E. Wagenmakers A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  The benefit of no choice: goal-directed plans enhance perceptual processing , 2015, Psychological research.

[21]  David E. Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. , 1997 .

[22]  C. W. Telford The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses , 1931 .

[23]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Goal congruency in bimanual object manipulation. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  Eva Röttger,et al.  Investigating the characteristics of “not responding”: backward crosstalk in the PRP paradigm with forced vs. free no-go decisions , 2017, Psychological research.

[25]  D. Rosenbaum Human movement initiation: specification of arm, direction, and extent. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[26]  Nachshon Meiran,et al.  The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[27]  Michael A Khan,et al.  The influence of response grouping on free-choice decision making in a response selection task. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[28]  Lynn Huestegge,et al.  Effects of a no-go Task 2 on Task 1 performance in dual - tasking: From benefits to costs , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[29]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions , 2015, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  G. Logan Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[31]  Ann Reynolds,et al.  The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  G. Logan,et al.  Parallel response selection in dual-task situations , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  Level 2 perspective taking entails two processes: evidence from PRP experiments. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  L. Cohen,et al.  Synchronous Bimanual Movements Performed by Homologous and Non-Homologous Muscles , 1971, Perceptual and motor skills.

[35]  D. Navon,et al.  Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  Gernot Horstmann,et al.  The psychological refractory period of stopping. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Effects of extensive dual-task practice on processing stages in simultaneous choice tasks , 2013, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[38]  D. Navon,et al.  Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[39]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Decomposing sources of response slowing in the PRP paradigm. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Chronometric Evidence for Central Postponement in Temporally Overlapping Tasks , 2003 .

[41]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: a psychophysiological analysis. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[43]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules , 2013, Advances in cognitive psychology.

[44]  Richard Schweickert,et al.  A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a stroop task , 1978 .

[45]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Through the portal: Effect anticipation in the central bottleneck. , 2015, Acta psychologica.

[47]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Anticipatory affect during action preparation: evidence from backward compatibility in dual-task performance , 2017, Cognition & emotion.

[48]  Moritz Durst,et al.  A comparison of the psychological refractory period and prioritized processing paradigms: Can the response-selection bottleneck model explain them both? , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  R. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[50]  W. Kunde,et al.  Effect Monitoring in Dual-Task Performance , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[51]  Michael E J Masson,et al.  A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[52]  Scott Watter,et al.  PRP training shows Task1 response selection is the locus of the backward response compatibility effect , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[53]  D. Rosenbaum The Movement Precuing Technique: Assumptions, Applications, and Extensions , 1983 .

[54]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  A Common Capacity Limitation for Response and Item Selection in Working Memory , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[55]  R. D. de Jong,et al.  Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[56]  R W Proctor,et al.  Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[57]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance , 2002, Psychological research.

[58]  Scott Watter,et al.  Information continuity across the response selection bottleneck: Early parallel Task 2 response activation contributes to overt Task 2 performance , 2013, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[59]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance , 2014, Cognition.

[60]  H. Pashler Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[61]  Aishah Bakhtiar,et al.  Growing up multitasking: The costs and benefits for cognitive development , 2015 .

[62]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning , Memory , and Cognition Exceptions to the PRP Effect ? A Comparison of Prepared and Unconditioned Reflexes , 2014 .

[63]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[64]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Dorsal and Ventral Processing Under Dual-Task Conditions , 2007, Psychological science.

[65]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Bimanual Response Grouping in Dual-Task Paradigms , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[66]  R. D. Gordon,et al.  Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. , 2001, Psychological review.

[67]  A. Welford THE ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD’ AND THE TIMING OF HIGH‐SPEED PERFORMANCE—A REVIEW AND A THEORY , 1952 .

[68]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  Larger between-task crosstalk in children than in adults: Behavioral results from the backward crosstalk paradigm and a diffusion model analysis. , 2017, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[69]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  The role of effect grouping in free-choice response selection. , 2014, Acta psychologica.