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

Psychological Research

Volumn 75, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 476-490

  Stelzel, Christine ^a,c   Schubert, Torsten ^b,c  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SPEECH;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SPEECH; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80355132094     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0368-x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Atchley, P., & Dressel, J. (2004). Conversation limits the functional field of view. Human Factors, 46(4), 664-673.
2. Atchley, P., Dressel, J., Jones, T., Burson, R., & Marshall, D. (2011). Talking and driving: applications of crossmodal action reveal a special role for spatial language. Psychological Research (this issue).
3. Cohen, A., & Feintuch, U. (2002). The dimensional-action system: a distinct visual system. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action (Vol. 19, pp. 587-608). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Fuster, J. M. (2000). Executive frontal functions. Experimental Brain Research, 133(1), 66-70.
5. Greenwald, A. G. (1972). Evidence of both perceptual filtering and response suppression for rejected messages in selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(1), 58-67.
6. Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70(6), 504-513.
7. Hazeltine, E., & Wifall, T. (2011). Searching working memory for the source of dual-task costs. Psychological Research (this issue).
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(4), 291-345.
9. Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 527-545.
10. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368-1384.
11. Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2009). Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(2), 352-362.
12. Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2010). Crossmodal action selection: evidence from dual-task compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 38(4), 493-501.
13. Israel, M., & Cohen, A. (2011). Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance. Psychological Research (this issue).
14. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility. A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 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(2), 212-238.
16. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393-434.
17. Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 26(3), 1072-1090.
18. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3-65.
19. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.
20. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220-244.
21. Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research, 70(6), 494-503.
22. Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 408-425.
23. Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 376-397.
24. Schubert, T., & Szameitat, A. J. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of interference in overlapping dual tasks: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 733-746.
25. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(3), 566-582.
26. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychology Science, 12(2), 101-108.
27. Schumacher, E. H., Schwarb, H., Lightman, E., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task. Psychological Research (this issue).
28. Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biology, 4(7), e220.
29. Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D'Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70(6), 514-525.
30. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1075-1081.
31. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research (this issue).
32. Virzi, R., & Egeth, H. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13(4), 304-319.
33. Welford, A. (1952). The 'psychological refractory period' and the timing of high-speed performance: a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2-9.
34. Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention & performance VIII (pp. 239-257). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
35. Wickens, C., Sandry, D., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 25(2), 227-248.
36. Wylie, G., Sumowski, J. F., & Murray, M. (2011). Are there control processes, and (if so) can they be studied? Psychological Research (this issue).