Do small dual-task costs reflect ideomotor compatibility or the absence of crosstalk?

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 1403-1409

  Halvorson, Kimberly M ^a   Hazeltine, Eliot ^b  

^a METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Iowa   (United States)

Author keywords

Dual task performance; Embodied cognition; Ideomotor compatibility; Modality effects

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; COLOR VISION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMITATION; LEARNING; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ATTENTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLOR PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REVERSAL LEARNING; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84942369505     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0813-8     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbols systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
3. Cocchini, G., Logie, R. H., Della Sala, S., MacPherson, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Concurrent performance of two memory tasks: Evidence for domain-specific working memory systems. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1086–1095.
4. Greenwald, A. G. (2003). On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 632–636.
5. Greenwald, A. G. (2004). On doing two things at once: IV. Necessary and sufficient conditions: Rejoinder to Lien, Proctor, and Ruthruff. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 632–636.
6. Greenwald, A. G., & Shulman, H. G. (1973). On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 70–76.
7. Halvorson, K. M., Ebner, H., & Hazeltine, E. (2013). Investigating perfect timesharing: The relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 413–432.
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., & Wifall, T. (2011). Searching working memory for the source of dual-task costs. Psychological Research, 75(6), 466–475.
10. Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Wallmeier, G., & Kunde, W. (2014). Exceptions from the PRP effect? A comparison of prepared and unconditioned reflexes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 776–786.
11. Lien, M.-C., Proctor, R. W., & Ruthruff, E. (2003). Still no evidence for perfect timesharing with two ideomotor-compatible tasks: A reply to Greenwald (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 1267–1272.
12. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435–448.
13. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19–45.
14. Pezzulo, G., Candidi, M., Dindo, H., & Barca, L. (2013). Action simulation in the human brain: Twelve questions. New Ideas in Psychology, 31(3), 270–290.
15. Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Melcher, T. (2010). Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta psychologica, 135(3), 316–322.
16. Shin, Y. K., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference. Acta Psychologica, 129, 352–364.
17. 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.
18. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75(6), 491–498.
19. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 795–810.
20. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). Orlando: Academic Press.
21. Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L., & 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, 227–248.