The costs of changing the representation of action: response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks.

In 5 experiments, the authors investigated the costs associated with repeating the same or a similar response in a dual-task setting. Using a psychological refractory period paradigm, they obtained response-repetition costs when the cognitive representation of a specific response (i.e., the category-response mapping) changed (Experiment 1) but benefits when it did not change (Experiment 2). The analogous pattern of results was found for conceptually similar (i.e. compatible) responses. Response-response compatibility costs occurred when the cognitive representations of the compatible responses were different (Experiments 3A & 3B), but compatibility benefits occurred when they were the same (Experiment 4). The authors interpret the costs of repeating an identical or compatible response in terms of a general mechanism of action selection that involves coding the task-specific meaning of a response.

[1]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance , 2002 .

[2]  Donald G. MacKay,et al.  Self-Inhibition and the Disruptive Effects of Internal and External Feedback in Skilled Behavior* , 1986 .

[3]  S. Monsell,et al.  Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. , 1995 .

[4]  H Pashler,et al.  Making two responses to a single object: implications for the central attentional bottleneck. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  A. Treisman,et al.  Attention, Space, and Action: Studies in Cognitive Neuroscience , 2001 .

[6]  S. Tipper,et al.  A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. , 1994 .

[7]  D. A. Taylor,et al.  The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  J. Müsseler,et al.  Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[10]  Roy Luria,et al.  Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  G. Wylie,et al.  Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. , 1999 .

[12]  O. Neumann.  Visual Attention and Action , 1990 .

[13]  D. Mackay.  The Organization of Perception and Action , 1987 .

[14]  T. Carr,et al.  Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory and Language , 1994 .

[15]  A. Allport.  Attention and control: have we been asking the wrong questions? A critical review of twenty-five years , 1993 .

[16]  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 .

[17]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. , 1991 .

[18]  H Pashler,et al.  Attentional limits in memory retrieval. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action: Attention and Performance Volume Xix , 2001 .

[20]  W. Prinz,et al.  Relationships Between Perception and Action: Current Approaches , 1990 .

[21]  Bernie Caessens,et al.  Inhibition and blindness to response-compatible stimuli: a reappraisal. , 2002, Acta psychologica.

[22]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes , 1999 .

[23]  Katherine D. Arbuthnott,et al.  To repeat or not to repeat : Repetition facilitation and inhibition in sequential retrieval , 1996 .

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

[25]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework of perception and action , 2001 .

[26]  R. Proctor,et al.  Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space , 1999 .

[28]  H. Heuer,et al.  Perspectives on Perception and Action , 1989 .

[29]  B. Hommel,et al.  Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[31]  N. Meiran.  Modeling cognitive control in task-switching , 2000, Psychological research.

[32]  I. Koch,et al.  The role of temporal unpredictability for process interference and code overlap in perception-action dual tasks , 2003, Psychological research.

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

[34]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Why don't we perceive our brain states? , 1992 .

[35]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[36]  Michael C. Anderson,et al.  Mechanisms of inhibition in long-term memory: A new taxonomy. , 1994 .

[37]  D. Alan Allport,et al.  SHIFTING INTENTIONAL SET - EXPLORING THE DYNAMIC CONTROL OF TASKS , 1994 .

[38]  S. Tipper,et al.  Inhibitory Mechanisms of Neural and Cognitive Control: Applications to Selective Attention and Sequential Action , 1996, Brain and Cognition.

[39]  T. Goschke.  Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching , 2000 .

[40]  I. Koch,et al.  The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[42]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Serial modules in parallel: the psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. , 2001, Psychological review.

[43]  A. Treisman.  The binding problem , 1996, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

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

[45]  E. Soetens.  Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure , 1998 .

[46]  M. Moscovitch,et al.  Attention and Performance 15: Conscious and Nonconscious Information Processing , 1994 .

[47]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Repetition effects with categorizable stimulus and response sets. , 1993 .

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

[49]  J. Driver,et al.  Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII , 2000 .

[50]  W. Prinz,et al.  Response preparation and code overlap in dual tasks , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[51]  S. Keele,et al.  Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[52]  G D Logan,et al.  Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[53]  T Kleinsorge,et al.  Response repetition benefits and costs. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[54]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Varieties of attention , 1984 .

[55]  H. Heuer,et al.  Generation and modulation of action patterns , 1986 .

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