Interference effects of stimulus–response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness

Recent evidence suggests that the degree of interference in dual-task situations depends crucially on the pairings of input- and output modalities of the two component tasks with increased dual-task costs for modality incompatible (i.e., visual–vocal and auditory–manual) compared to modality compatible (i.e., visual–manual and auditory–vocal) dual tasks. These effects of modality pairings in dual tasks have been related to the overlap of non-preferred processing pathways in modality incompatible tasks. Until now, modality compatibility has not yet been related to other sources of interference in a dual-task context, such as stimulus–response (S–R) compatibility or crosstalk. In the present study, we conducted two experiments using the paradigm of the psychological refractory period (PRP) to test the effects of S–R compatibility and crosstalk on the effects of modality compatibility in temporally overlapping task situations. Experiment 1 revealed an overadditive interaction between stimulus onset asynchrony and modality compatibility for tasks with S–R compatible mappings, indicating that modality compatibility effects are present in different task situations, even when S–R mappings are otherwise compatible. In Experiment 2, we aimed at pinpointing the boundaries of the effects of modality compatibility in dual-task situations. We showed that additional sources of dual-task interference in a modality compatible dual task could overwrite the pronounced PRP effect previously shown for modality incompatible tasks. Taken together, these data provide new evidence that the specific types of stimulus–response modality pairings are an additional factor that might interact with other sources of interference in dual-task situations.

[1]  Paul Atchley,et al.  Talking and driving: applications of crossmodal action reveal a special role for spatial language , 2011, Psychological research.

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

[3]  Stefanie Schuch,et al.  The costs of changing the representation of action: response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  M. Murray,et al.  Are there control processes, and (if so) can they be studied? , 2011, Psychological research.

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

[6]  Joaquín M. Fuster,et al.  Executive frontal functions , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

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

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

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

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

[11]  Paul Atchley,et al.  Conversation Limits the Functional Field of View , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[12]  E. Miller,et al.  An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. , 2001, Annual review of neuroscience.

[13]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Functional neuroanatomy of interference in overlapping dual tasks: an fMRI study. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[15]  Hillary D. Schwarb,et al.  Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task , 2011, Psychological research.

[16]  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.

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

[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]  H. Egeth,et al.  Toward a translational model of Stroop interference , 1985, Memory & cognition.

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

[21]  I. Koch,et al.  Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Evidence of both perceptual filtering and response suppression for rejected messages in selective attention. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  M. Sigman,et al.  Dynamics of the Central Bottleneck: Dual-Task and Task Uncertainty , 2006, PLoS biology.

[24]  E. Hazeltine,et al.  Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck , 2006, Psychological Research.

[25]  W. Prinz.  Common mechanisms in perception and action. , 2002 .

[26]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Structure of Attentional Resources , 1980 .

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

[28]  Asher Cohen,et al.  Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance , 2011, Psychological research.

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

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

[31]  I. Koch,et al.  Crossmodal action selection: Evidence from dual-task compatibility , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[32]  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.

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

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

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

[36]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks , 1999 .