Dual-task automatization: The key role of sensory–motor modality compatibility

How do people automatize their dual-task performance through bottleneck bypassing (i.e., accomplish parallel processing of the central stages of two tasks)? In the present work we addressed this question, evaluating the impact of sensory–motor modality compatibility—the similarity in modality between the stimulus and the consequences of the response. We hypothesized that incompatible sensory–motor modalities (e.g., visual–vocal) create conflicts within modality-specific working memory subsystems, and therefore predicted that tasks producing such conflicts would be performed less automatically after practice. To probe for automaticity, we used a transfer psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure: Participants were first trained on a visual task (Exp. 1) or an auditory task (Exp. 2) by itself, which was later presented as Task 2, along with an unpracticed Task 1. The Task 1–Task 2 sensory–motor modality pairings were either compatible (visual–manual and auditory–vocal) or incompatible (visual–vocal and auditory–manual). In both experiments we found converging indicators of bottleneck bypassing (small dual-task interference and a high rate of response reversals) for compatible sensory–motor modalities, but indicators of bottlenecking (large dual-task interference and few response reversals) for incompatible sensory–motor modalities. Relatedly, the proportion of individuals able to bypass the bottleneck was high for compatible modalities but very low for incompatible modalities. We propose that dual-task automatization is within reach when the tasks rely on codes that do not compete within a working memory subsystem.

[1]  E. Hazeltine,et al.  Do small dual-task costs reflect ideomotor compatibility or the absence of crosstalk? , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  Eric Ruthruff,et al.  How strategic is the central bottleneck: can it be overcome by trying harder? , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening? , 2006, Psychological research.

[4]  Jennifer M. Glass,et al.  Virtually Perfect Time Sharing in Dual-Task Performance: Uncorking the Central Cognitive Bottleneck , 2001, Psychological science.

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

[6]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect , 1999 .

[7]  Robert Borger,et al.  The Refractory Period and Serial Choice-reactions , 1963 .

[8]  E. Hazeltine,et al.  Investigating perfect timesharing: the relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[10]  Eric Ruthruff,et al.  Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[11]  Timothy A. Wifall,et al.  Searching working memory for the source of dual-task costs , 2011, Psychological research.

[12]  R. Remington,et al.  The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  Iring Koch,et al.  The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching , 2011, Psychological research.

[14]  E. Ruthruff,et al.  Learning to bypass the central bottleneck: declining automaticity with advancing age. , 2010, Psychology and aging.

[15]  W. Prinz A common-coding approach to perception and action , 1990 .

[16]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  The role of sensory-motor modality compatibility in language processing , 2015, Psychological Research.

[18]  I. Koch,et al.  Tactile Stimuli Increase Effects of Modality Compatibility in Task Switching. , 2015, Experimental psychology.

[19]  Eliot Hazeltine,et al.  What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? , 2006, Psychological research.

[20]  A. Greenwald,et al.  On doing two things at once. II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. , 1970, Psychological review.

[22]  Jennifer M. Glass,et al.  Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. , 1999 .

[23]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Why practice reduces dual-task interference. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  Ritske de Jong,et al.  Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance , 1993 .

[25]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[26]  L. Karlin,et al.  Effects of Number of Alternatives on the Psychological Refractory Period , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[27]  Paul Bertelson,et al.  Refractory period of c-reactions , 1969 .

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

[29]  I. Koch,et al.  Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation , 2016, Psychological research.

[30]  H. Pashler,et al.  Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Lost ability to automatize task performance in old age , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  I. Koch,et al.  Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  Eliot Hazeltine,et al.  Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  W. Prinz Perception and Action Planning , 1997 .

[35]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  H. Pashler,et al.  Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[37]  W. Prinz,et al.  Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination , 2001, Nature.

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

[39]  D E Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. , 1997, Psychological review.

[40]  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 .

[41]  D. Strayer,et al.  Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.