Crossmodal action selection: Evidence from dual-task compatibility

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 493-501

  Huestegge, Lynn ^a   Koch, Iring ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLOR VISION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; SACCADIC EYE MOVEMENT; SHORT TERM MEMORY; TIME PERCEPTION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SACCADES; TIME PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956489193     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.38.4.493     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. BEKKERING, H., ADAM, J. J., KINGMA, H., HUSON, A., & WHITING, H. T. A. (1994). Reaction time latencies of eye and hand movements in single- and dual-task conditions. Experimental Brain Research, 97, 471-476.
2. BYRNE, M. D., & ANDERSON, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108, 847-869.
3. DUNBAR, K., & MACLEOD, C. M. (1984). A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 622-639.
4. DUNCAN, J. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 216-228.
5. FAGOT, C., & PASHLER, H. (1992). Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 1058-1079.
6. GOTTSDANKER, R. (1979). A psychological refractory period or an unprepared period? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 208-215.
7. HANCOCK, P. A., ORON-GILAD, T., & SZALMA, J. L. (2007). Elaborations of the multiple-resource theory of attention. In A. F. Kramer, D. A. Wiegmann, & A. Kirlik (Eds.), Attention: From theory to practice (pp. 45-56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. HAZELTINE, E., RUTHRUFF, E., & REMINGTON, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291-345.
9. HAZELTINE, E., TEAGUE, D., & IVRY, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dualtask performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 527-545.
10. HERMAN, L. M., & KANTOWITZ, B. H. (1970). The psychological refractory period effect: Only half the double-stimulation story? Psychological Bulletin, 73, 74-88.
11. HOMMEL, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dualtask performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
12. HUESTEGGE, L., & KOCH, I. (2009). Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 35, 352-362.
13. KOCH, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: Evidence from manipulating response-code overlap. Psychological Research, 73, 417-424.
14. KORNBLUM, S., HASBROUCQ, T., & OSMAN, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
15. LIEN, M.-C., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212-238.
16. LOGAN, G. D., & GORDON, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434.
17. MACLEOD, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
18. MAROIS, R., & IVANOFF, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 296-305.
19. MATHER, J. A., & FISK, J. D. (1985). Orienting to targets by looking and pointing: Parallels and interactions in ocular and manual performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 315-338.
20. MEYER, D. E., & KIERAS, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65.
21. MILLER, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on firsttask response latencies. Psychological Research, 70, 484-493.
22. NAVON, D., & MILLER, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 435-448.
23. NAVON, D., & MILLER, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
24. OBERAUER, K. (2005). Binding and inhibition in working memory: Individual and age differences in short-term recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 368-387.
25. PASHLER, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 358-377.
26. PASHLER, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
27. PASHLER, H., CARRIER, M., & HOFFMAN, J. (1993). Saccadic eye movements and dual-task interference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 51-82.
28. POSNER, M. I., & SNYDER, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. PROCTOR, R. W., & VU, K.-P. L. (2009). Determinants of the benefit for consistent stimulus-response mappings in dual-task performance of four-choice tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 734- 756.
30. RUTHRUFF, E., JOHNSTON, J. C., VAN SELST, M., WHITSELL, S., & REMINGTON, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 280-289.
31. SALVUCCI, D. D., & TAATGEN, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115, 101-130.
32. SANDERS, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. SPENCE, C., & DRIVER, J. (EDS.) (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. STROOP, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
35. TOMBU, M., & JOLICOEUR, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 3-18.
36. ULRICH, R., & MILLER, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 75-121.
37. VU, K.-P. L., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2006). Emergent perceptual features in the benefit of consistent stimulus-response mappings on dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 70, 468-483.
38. WELFORD, A. T. (1952). The "psychological refractory period" and the timing of high-speed performance-A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2-19.
39. WICKENS, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.