Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation

Psychological Research

Volumn 80, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 935-943

  Stephan, Denise Nadine ^a   Koch, Iring ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ATTENTION; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84941694875     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-015-0700-y     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.
2. Bruyer, R., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: is the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)? Psychologica Belgica, 51, 5–13.
3. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.
4. Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57.
5. 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.
6. Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227.
7. Hirst, W. & Kalmar, D. (1987). Characterizing attentional resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 68–81. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.116.1.68.
8. Hughes, M. M., Linck, J. A., Bowles, A. R., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Alternatives to switch-cost scoring in the task-switching paradigm: Their reliability and increased validity. Behavior Research Methods, in press. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0411-5.
9. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2, chapter XXVI). New York: Holt.
10. Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
11. Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching – A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.
12. Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: Evidence from manipulating response-set overlap. Psychological Research, 73, 417–424. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0152-8.
13. Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 192–201. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.192.
14. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14.
15. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.
16. 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, 1072–1090. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1072.
17. Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267.
18. McLeod, P. & Posner, M.I. (1984). Privileged loops from percept to act. In H. Bouma & D. Bowhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X (pp. 55–66). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 1023–1041.
20. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
21. Navon, D. (1984). Resources—A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 2, 216–234. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.2.216.
22. Navon, D. (1985). Attention division or attention sharing? In M. Posner & M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and Performance XI (pp. 133–146). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
23. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435–448. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.435.
24. Paelecke, M., & Kunde, W. (2007). Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: evidence from the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 627–644. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.627.
25. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.
26. Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 277–307). Cambridge: MIT Press.
27. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.
28. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and practice. Boca-Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
29. Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Set- and element-level stimulus–response compatibility effects for different manual response sets. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 351–365.
30. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
31. Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–947.
32. Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C., & Kleinsorge, T. (2000). Specification of movement amplitudes fort he left and right hands: Evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1091–1101. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1091
33. Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D`Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility in dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 514–525.
34. 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, 1075–1081.
35. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75, 491–498.
36. Stephan, D.N., & Koch, I. (2015). Tactile stimuli increase effects of modality compatibility in task switching. Experimental Psychology. in press.
37. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626.
39. Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304–319.
40. Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus–response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201–1217.
41. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). New York: Academic Press.