Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance

Cognition

Volumn 132, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 30-43

  Janczyk, Markus ^a   Pfister, Roland ^a   Hommel, Bernhard ^b   Kunde, Wilfried ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Action effects; Backward crosstalk; Dual tasking; Goals; Ideomotor theory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BACKWARD CROSSTALK EFFECT; DUAL TASK PERFORMANCE; FEMALE; HAND MOVEMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NERVOUS SYSTEM PARAMETERS; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPRIOCEPTIVE FEEDBACK; RESPONSE TIME; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; ADOLESCENT; ATTENTION; CONFLICT; MOTIVATION; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; GOALS; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84898850166     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Badets A., Koch I., Toussaint L. Role of an ideomotor mechanism in number processing. Experimental Psychology 2013, 60:34-43.
2. Cohen L. Synchronous bimanual movements performed by homologous and non-homologous muscles. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1971, 32:639-644.
3. Cohen-Kdoshay O., Meiran N. The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:1140-1154.
4. Cohen-Kdoshay O., Meiran N. The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex: Flanker compatibility effects found in first trial following S-R instructions. Experimental Psychology 2009, 56:128-133.
5. Ellenbogen R., Meiran N. Working memory involvement in dual-task performance: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36:968-978.
6. Ellenbogen R., Meiran N. Objects and events as determinants of parallel processing in dual tasks: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2011, 37:152-167.
7. Elsner B., Hommel B. Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:229-240.
8. Freeman J.B., Dale R. Assessing bimodality to detect the presence of a dual cognitive process. Behavior Research Methods 2013, 45:83-97.
9. Greenwald A.G. Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review 1970, 77:77-99.
10. Hartigan J.A., Hartigan P.M. The dip test of unimodality. The Annals of Statistics 1985, 13:70-84.
11. Hedges L.V., Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis 1985, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
12. Herwig A., Prinz W., Waszak F. Two modes of sensorimotor integration in intention-based and stimulus-based actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:1540-1554.
13. Herwig A., Waszak F. Action-effect bindings and ideomotor learning in intention- and stimulus-based actions. Frontiers in Psychology 2012, 3:444.
14. Heuer H. Structural constraints on bimanual movements. Psychological Research 1993, 55:83-98.
15. Hommel B. Inverting the Simon effect by intention. Psychological Research 1993, 55:270-279.
16. Hommel B. The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research 1996, 59:176-186.
17. Hommel B. Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24:1368-1384.
18. Hommel B. Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research 2009, 73:512-526.
19. Hommel B., Eglau B. Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research 2002, 66:260-273.
20. Hommel B., Müsseler J., Aschersleben G., Prinz W. The theory of event coding: A framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2001, 24:849-878.
21. James W. The principles of psychology (orig. 1890) 1890/1981, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
22. Janczyk M. Level-2 perspective taking entails two processes: Evidence from PRP experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2013, 39:1878-1887.
23. Janczyk M., Dambacher M., Bieleke M., Gollwitzer P.M. The benefit of no choice: Goal-directed plans enhance perceptual processing. Psychological Research 2014, 10.1007/s00426-014-0549-5.
24. Janczyk M., Heinemann A., Pfister R. Instant attraction: Immediate action-effect bindings occur for both, stimulus- and goal-driven actions. Frontiers in Psychology 2012, 3:446.
25. Janczyk M., Pfister R., Crognale M., Kunde W. Effective rotations: Action effects determine the interplay of mental and manual rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2012, 141:489-501.
26. Janczyk M., Pfister R., Kunde W. On the persistence of tool-based compatibility effects. Journal of Psychology 2012, 220:16-22.
27. Janczyk M., Pfister R., Wallmeier G., Kunde W. Exceptions to the PRP Effect? A comparison of prepared and unconditioned reflexes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2014, 10.1037/a0035548.
28. Janczyk M., Skirde S., Weigelt M., Kunde W. Visual and tactile action effects determine bimanual coordination performance. Human Movement Science 2009, 28:437-449.
29. Koch I., Kunde W. Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition 2002, 30(8):1297-1303.
30. Kunde W. Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:387-394.
31. Kunde W., Hoffmann J., Zellmann P. The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. Acta Psychologica 2002, 109:137-155.
32. Kunde W., Krauss H., Weigelt M. Goal congruency without stimulus congruency in bimanual coordination. Psychological Research 2009, 73:34-42.
33. Kunde W., Müsseler J., Heuer H. Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors 2007, 49:661-670.
34. Kunde W., Pfister R., Janczyk M. The locus of tool-transformation costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2012, 38:703-714.
35. Kunde W., Weigelt M. Goal congruency in bimanual object manipulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2005, 31:145-156.
36. Lien M.-C., Proctor R.W. Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2000, 26:1260-1280.
37. Lien M.-C., Proctor R.W. Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2002, 9:212-238.
38. Logan G.D., Delheimer J.A. Parallel retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2001, 27:668-685.
39. Logan G.D., Gordon R.D. Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review 2001, 108:393-434.
40. Logan G.D., Schulkind M.D. Parallel retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2000, 26:1072-1090.
41. Mechsner F., Kerzel D., Knoblich G., Prinz W. Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature 2001, 414:69-73.
42. Memelink J., Hommel B. Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research 2013, 77:249-259.
43. Miller J. Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response type on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research 2006, 70:484-493.
44. Miller J., Alderton M. Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 37:149-165.
45. Navon D., Miller J. Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1987, 13:435-448.
46. Paelecke M., Kunde W. Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: Evidence from the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2007, 33:627-644.
47. Pashler H. Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin 1994, 116:220-244.
48. Pashler H., Johnston J.C. Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1989, 41A:19-45.
49. Pfister R., Janczyk M. Harleß' apparatus of will: 150 years later. Psychological Research 2012, 76:561-565.
50. Pfister R., Janczyk M. Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 2013, 9:74-80.
51. Pfister R., Janczyk M., Gressmann M., Fournier L.R., Kunde W. Good vibrations? Vibrotactile self-stimulation reveals anticipation of body-related action effects in motor control. Experimental Brain Research 2014, 232:847-854.
52. Pfister R., Kiesel A., Hoffmann J. Learning at any rate: Action-effect learning for stimulus-based actions. Psychological Research 2011, 75:61-65.
53. Pfister R., Kiesel A., Melcher T. Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica 2010, 135:316-322.
54. Pfister R., Kunde W. Dissecting the response in response-effect compatibility. Experimental Brain Research 2013, 224(4):647-655.
55. Pfister R., Schwarz K.A., Janczyk M., Dale R., Freeman J.B. Good things peak in pairs: A note on the bimodality coefficient. Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement 2013, 4:700. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00700.
56. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT user's guide, Version 6 1990, Author, Cary, NC. 4th ed.
57. Schweickert R. A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a Stroop task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1978, 18:105-139.
58. Schubert T., Fischer R., Stelzel C. Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:376-397.
59. Stenneken P., Aschersleben G., Cole J., Prinz W. Self-induced versus reactive triggering of synchronous movements in a deafferented patient and control subjects. Psychological Research 2002, 66:40-49.
60. Stock A., Stock C. A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research 2004, 68:176-188.
61. Thomson S.J., Watter S., Finkelshtein A. Parallel response selection in dual-task situations via automatic category-to-response translation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2010, 72:1791-1802.
62. Tombu M., Jolicoeur P. A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2003, 29:3-18.
63. Wallace R.J. S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1971, 88:354-360.
64. Welford A.T. The "psychological refractory period" and the timing of high-speed performance: A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology 1952, 43:2-19.
65. Wexler M., Kosslyn S.M., Berthoz A. Motor processes in mental rotation. Cognition 1998, 68:77-94.
66. Wohlschläger A., Wohlschläger A. Mental and manual rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24:397-412.
67. Wolfensteller U., Ruge H. On the timescale of stimulus-based action-effect learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2011, 64:1273-1289.