Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings

Cognition

Volumn 150, Issue , 2016, Pages 92-108

  Göthe, Katrin ^a   Oberauer, Klaus ^b   Kliegl, Reinhold ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Bottleneck; Modality pairings; Parallel processing; Representational overlap

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DUAL-TASK PERFORMANCE (TEST); HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; STIMULUS; TASK PERFORMANCE; VERBALIZATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HEARING; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84957818407     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Allport D.A., Antonis B., Reynolds P. On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1972, 24:225-235.
2. Arnott S.R., Binns M.A., Grady C.L., Alain C. Assessing the auditory dual-pathway model in humans. NeuroImage 2004, 22:401-408.
3. Baddeley A.D. Working memory 1986, Clarendon Press, Oxford, England.
4. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (Version 1.1-5.). Retrieved http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org.
5. Berteletti I., Lucangeli D., Zorzi M. Representation of numerical and non-numerical order in children. Cognition 2012, 124(3):304-313.
6. Bruce C., Desimone R., Gross C.G. Visual properties of neurons in a polysensory area in superior temporal sulcus of the macaque. Journal of Neurophysiology 1981, 46(2):369-384.
7. Carrier L.M., Pashler H. Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 1995, 21(5):1339-1348.
8. Cho Y.S., Proctor R.W. Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2003, 10(1):45-73.
9. Dehaene S., Bossini S., Giraux P. The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1993, 122(3):371-396.
10. Farrell S. Mixed-list phonological similarity effects in delayed serial recall. Journal of Memory and Language 2006, 55:587-600.
11. Fischer, M. H. (2004). Spatial representation of numbers. The handbook of mathematical cognition (p. 43).
12. Göthe, K. (2009). The limits of parallel processing. Ph.D. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
13. Greenwald A.G. Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1972, 94(1):52-57.
14. Greenwald A.G. On doing two things at once: IV. Necessary and sufficient conditions: Rejoinder to Lien, Proctor, and Ruthruff (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2004, 30(3):632-636.
15. Greenwald A.G., Schulman H.G. On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1973, 101:70-76.
16. Hazeltine E., Ruthruff E. Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research 2006, 70:504-513.
17. Hazeltine E., Ruthruff E., Remington R.W. The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology 2006, 52:291-345.
18. Hazeltine E., Teague D., Ivry R.B. Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2002, 28(3):527-545.
19. Hommel B. Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research 1993, 55:270-279.
20. Hommel B. Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24(5):1368-1384.
21. Hommel B. Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition 1998, 5(1/2):183-216.
22. Hommel B., Müsseler J., Aschersleben G., Prinz W. The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2001, 24:849-937.
23. Israel M., Cohen A. Involuntary strategy-dependent dual-task performance. Psychological Research 2011, 75:513-524.
24. Jones D.M., Macken W.J. Irrelevant tones produce an irrelevant speech effect: Implications for phonological coding in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 1993, 19:369-381.
25. Kahneman D. Attention and effort 1973, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
26. Keller P.E., Koch I. Exogenous and endogenous response priming with auditory stimuli. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 2006, 2(4):269-276.
27. Koch I. The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: Evidence from manipulating response-code overlap. Psychological Research 2009, 73:417-424. 10.1007/s00426-008-0152-8.
28. Koelsch S., Gunter T.C., von Cramon D.Y., Zysset S., Lohrmann G., Friederici A.D. Bach speaks: A cortical "language-network" serves the processing of music. NeuroImage 2002, 17:956-966.
29. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., Osman A. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review 1990, 97(2):253-270.
30. Lange E.B. Disruption of attention by irrelevant stimuli in serial recall. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 53:513-531.
31. Levy J., Pashler H. Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27(4):862-869.
32. Logan G.D., Gordon R.D. Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review 2001, 108(2):393-434.
33. Lonnemann J., Linkersdorfer J., Nagler T., Hasselhorn M., Lindberg S. Spatial representations of numbers and letters in children. Frontiers in Psychology 2013, 4:544-549.
34. McLeod P. Parallel processing and the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica 1977, 41:381-396.
35. Meyer D.E., Kieras D.E. A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review 1997, 104(1):3-65.
36. Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2015). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs (Version 0.9.11-1). Retrieved http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor.
37. Navon D., Miller J. Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1987, 13(3):435-448.
38. Navon D., Miller J. Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology 2002, 44:193-251.
39. Norman D.A., Bobrow D.G. On data-limited and resource limited processes. Cognitive Psychology 1975, 7:44-64.
40. Nowak L.G., Munk M.H., Girard P., Bullier J. Visual latencies in areas V1 and V2 of the macaque monkey. Visual Neuroscience 1995, 12(2):371-384.
41. Oberauer K. Design for a working memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory 2009, 51:45-100.
42. Oberauer K., Bialkova S. Serial and parallel processes in working memory after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2011, 37(2):606-614.
43. Oberauer K., Kliegl R. Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2004, 30(4):689-707.
44. Pashler H. Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1984, 10(3):258-377.
45. Pashler H., Johnston J.C. Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1989, 41(A1):19-45.
46. Prinz W. A common coding approach to perception and action. Relations between perception and action 1990, 167-201. Springer, Berlin, Germany. O. Neumann, W. Prinz (Eds.).
47. R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2.13.2). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved. http://www.R-project.org.
48. Recanzone G.H., Guard D.C., Phan M.L. Frequency and intensity response properties of single neurons in the auditory cortex of the behaving macaque monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology 2000, 83(4):2315-2331.
49. Rubin O., Meiran N. On the origins of the task mixing cost in cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 2005, 31(6):1477-1491.
50. Rusconi E., Kawn B., Giordano B.L., Umilta C., Butterworth B. Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition 2006, 99(2):113-129.
51. Ruthruff E., Hazeltine E., Remington R.W. What causes residual dual-task interference after practice?. Psychological Research 2006, 70(6):494-503.
52. Ruthruff E., Johnston J.C., Van Selst M., Whitsell S., Remington R. Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2003, 29(2):280-289.
53. Salamé P., Baddeley A. Effects of background music on phonological short-term memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1989, 41A(1):107-122.
54. Schumacher E.H., Seymour T.L., Glass J.M., Fencsik D.E., Lauber E.J., Kieras D.E., Meyer D.E. Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science 2001, 12(2):101-108.
55. Shaffer L.H. Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. Attention and performance V 1975, 157-167. Academic Press, New York. P.M.A. Rabbitt, S. Dornic (Eds.).
56. Steinhauser M., Hübner R. Mixing costs in task shifting reflect sequential processing stages in a multicomponent task. Memory & Cognition 2005, 33(8):1484-1494.
57. Stelzel C., Schumacher E.H., Schubert T., D'Esposito M. The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: An fMRI study. Psychological Research 2005, 70(6):514-525.
58. Stephan D.N., Koch I. Central cross-talk in task-switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 2010, 36(4):1075-1081.
59. Stephan D.N., Koch I. The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research 2011, 75(6):491-498.
60. Stephan D.N., Koch I. Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: Evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation. Psychological Research 2015, 10.1007/s00426-015-0700-y.
61. Sternberg S. On the discovery of processing stages: Some extensions of Donder's method. Acta Psychologica 1969, 30:276-315.
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. Tombu M., Jolicoeur P. Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2004, 30(5):795-810.
64. Tombu M., Jolicoeur P. Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2005, 31(4):790-802.
65. Ulrich R., Miller J. Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology 2008, 57:75-121.
66. Van Selst M., Jolicoeur P. Can mental rotation occur before the dual-task bottleneck?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1994, 20(4):905-921.
67. Warren J.D., Griffiths T.D. Distinct mechanisms for processing spatial sequences and pitch sequences in the human auditory brain. The Journal of Neuroscience 2003, 23(13):5799-5804.
68. Weeks D.J., Proctor R.W. Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus-response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1990, 119(4):355-366.
69. Wetzels R., Wagenmakers E.-J. A default Bayesian hypothesis test for correlations and partial correlations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2012, 19(6):1057-1064.
70. Wickens C.D. The structure of attentional resources. Attention and Performance VII 1980, 239-257. Erlbaum, Hillsdale N J. R. Nickerson, R. Pew (Eds.).
71. Wickens C.D. Processing resources in attention. Varieties of attention 1984, Wiley, New York. R. Parasuraman, J. Beaty, R. Davies (Eds.).
72. Wickens C.D., Sandry D.L., Vidulich M. Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing and output. Human Factors 1983, 25(2):227-248.