Sensory-motor modality compatibility in multitasking: The influence of processing codes.

Sensory-motor modality compatibility is defined as the similarity between the sensory modality and the modality of response-related effects. Previous dual-task and task-switching studies have shown higher performance costs for coordinating relatively incompatible sensory-motor modality mappings (i.e., auditory-manual and visual-vocal) compared to more compatible mappings (i.e., auditory-vocal and visual-manual). Until now, however, little attention has been paid to potential variability in effects of modality compatibility depending on different processing codes. In the present study, we independently varied the processing codes of input and output (nonverbal-spatial, nonverbal-nominal, verbal-spatial, verbal-nominal) while participants switched between incompatible and compatible sensory-motor modality mappings. Beside higher switch costs for switching between incompatible sensory-motor modality mappings than for switching between compatible mappings, the results revealed stronger effects of modality compatibility on switch costs for verbal input than for nonverbal input codes. This suggests that priming mechanisms between sensory input and compatible motor output are modulated by the processing code of the sensory input. As possible explanations, we assume a higher degree of concordance with output processing codes as well as stronger associations with potential response effects for verbal than for nonverbal input.

[1]  K. Feder,et al.  Handwriting development, competency, and intervention , 2007, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[2]  C D Wickens,et al.  Compatibility and Resource Competition between Modalities of Input, Central Processing, and Output , 1983, Human factors.

[3]  H. Lane,et al.  The Lombard Sign and the Role of Hearing in Speech , 1971 .

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

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

[6]  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.

[7]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  Control and interference in task switching--a review. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

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

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

[10]  E. J. Capaldi,et al.  A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

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

[12]  A. Liberman,et al.  The motor theory of speech perception revised , 1985, Cognition.

[13]  Andrea Kiesel,et al.  Cognitive Structure, Flexibility, and Plasticity in Human Multitasking—An Integrative Review of Dual-Task and Task-Switching Research , 2018, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings , 2016, Cognition.

[15]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  It's in the eyes: Planning precise manual actions before execution. , 2016, Journal of vision.

[16]  Ronald Hübner,et al.  Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting? , 2006, Psychological research.

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

[18]  Iring Koch,et al.  The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: evidence from manipulating response-code overlap , 2009, Psychological research.

[19]  I. Koch,et al.  Inhibitory control in task switching , 2014 .

[20]  H. Pashler.  The Psychology of Attention , 1997 .

[21]  J. F. Soechting,et al.  Role of auditory feedback in the control of successive keystrokes during piano playing , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[23]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: an fMRI study , 2006, Psychological research.

[24]  Kristin Lemhöfer,et al.  Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English , 2011, Behavior research methods.

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

[26]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis , 2016, Psychological research.

[27]  M. Turvey,et al.  The motor theory of speech perception reviewed , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  I. Koch,et al.  Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality , 2018, Psychological research.

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

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

[31]  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.

[32]  D H Ballard,et al.  Hand-eye coordination during sequential tasks. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[33]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Executive Control of Thought and Action , 2003 .