Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance

Abstract. In contradiction to stimulus-response- (S-R-) translation bottleneck models of dual-task control, stimulus processing in a primary task is affected by its compatibility with the response in a secondary, later performed task (Hommel, 1998a)– an indication of parallel S-R translation. Here we show that this backward-compatibility effect is independent of working-memory load, whether this is induced by an extra memory task (Experiment 1) or by increasing the number of S-R alternatives in the primary task (Experiment 2). However, backward effects occur even when the secondary task is no longer carried out (Experiment 3) and they are strongly affected by the inconsistency of previously used S-R mappings (Experiment 4). These findings suggest that S-R translation is (or can be) capacity-independent and automatic even under multiple-task conditions, and that it is mediated by direct S-R associations that emerge after only little practice.

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

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

[3]  G. Logan.  Short-Term Memory Demands of Reaction-Time Tasks That Differ in Complexity , 1980 .

[4]  John R. Anderson.  Acquisition of cognitive skill. , 1982 .

[5]  C. L. M..  The Psychology of Attention , 1890, Nature.

[6]  D. Berlyne.  Uncertainty and conflict: a point of contact between information-theory and behavior-theory concepts. , 1957, Psychological review.

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

[8]  D. Stuss,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience. , 1993, Current opinion in neurobiology.

[9]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference , 1992 .

[10]  R. B. Freeman,et al.  Cognition and Motor Processes , 1983 .

[11]  M. C. Smith,et al.  The Psychological Refractory Period as a Function of Performance of a First Response , 1967, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[13]  B. Hommel.  The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation , 2000 .

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

[15]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Contextualization in perception and action , 2000 .

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

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

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

[19]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. , 2001 .

[20]  B. Hommel.  Event Files: Evidence for Automatic Integration of Stimulus-Response Episodes , 1998 .

[21]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Doing Two Things at the Same Time , 2002 .

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

[23]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Modes of Linkage Between Perception and Action , 1984 .

[24]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Intentional Control of Automatic Stimulus-Response Translation , 2000 .

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

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

[27]  N. Ach,et al.  Uber den Willensakt und das Temperament. , 1910 .

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

[29]  Odmar Neumann,et al.  Automatic Processing: A Review of Recent Findings and a Plea for an Old Theory , 1984 .

[30]  B. Hommel,et al.  Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus–task bindings in task-shift costs , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Attention in Character-Classification Tasks : Evidence for the Automaticity of Component Stages , 1978 .

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

[33]  G. Logan,et al.  On the Use of a Concurrent Memory Load to Measure Attention and Automaticity , 1979 .

[34]  R. Herrnstein.  On the law of effect. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[35]  Paul M. Fitts,et al.  Perceptual-Motor Skill Learning1 , 1964 .

[36]  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.

[37]  S W Keele,et al.  Processing demands of sequential information , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[38]  J. R. Simon.  The Effects of an Irrelevant Directional CUE on Human Information Processing , 1990 .

[39]  C W Eriksen,et al.  Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  R. Proctor,et al.  The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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