Higher-order cognitive control in dual tasks: Evidence from task-pair switching

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 569-580

  Hirsch, Patricia ^a   Nolden, Sophie ^a   Koch, Iring ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cognitive control; Dual tasks; Hierarchical task organization; PRP effect; Task pairs

Indexed keywords

ADULT; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85009761368     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: 19391277     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000309     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. De Jong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 48, 2-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14640749508401372.
2. Ellenbogen, R., & Meiran, N. (2008). Working memory involvement in dual-task performance: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Memory & Cognition, 36, 968-978. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC .36.5.968.
3. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483- 492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ h0054967.
4. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062827.
5. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). The influence of overlapping response sets on task inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 35, 603-609. http://dx.doi.org/10 .3758/BF03193298.
6. Grange, J. A., Juvina, I., & Houghton, G. (2013). On costs and benefits of n ± 2 repetitions in task switching: Towards a behavioural marker of cognitive inhibition. Psychological Research, 77, 211-222. http://dx.doi .org/10.1007/s00426-012-0421-4.
7. Heuer, H. (1991). Motor constraints in dual-task performance. In D. L. Damos (Ed.), Multiple task performance (pp. 173-204). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
8. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.5.1368.
9. Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2009). Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 352-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013897.
10. Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132, 30-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001.
11. Keller, P. E., & Koch, I. (2006). Exogenous and endogenous response priming with auditory stimuli. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 269-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0061-9.
12. Keller, P. E., & Koch, I. (2008). Action planning in sequential skills: Relations to music performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 61, 275-291. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/17470210601160864.
13. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.
14. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0096-1523.28.1.192.
15. Koch, I., & Rumiati, R. I. (2006). Task-set inertia and memoryconsolidation bottleneck in dual tasks. Psychological Research, 70, 448-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0020-8.
16. Lien, M. C., McCann, R. S., Ruthruff, E., & Proctor, R. W. (2005). Dual-task performance with ideomotor-compatible tasks: Is the central processing bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 122-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.122.
17. Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1260-1280. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0096-1523.26.4.1260.
18. Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212-238. http://dx.doi.org/10 .3758/BF03196277.
19. Lien, M. C., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Task switching in a hierarchical task structure: Evidence for the fragility of the task repetition benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 697-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.697.
20. Lien, M. C., Schweickert, R., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 692-712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.3 .692.
21. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.393.
22. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 556-574. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0096-1523.29.3.556.
23. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2006). Dual route for subtask order control: Evidence from the psychological refractory paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 59, 720-744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724980543000060.
24. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.1.4.
25. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0767.
26. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.116.2.220.
27. Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 624- 639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09541440500423269.
28. Richardson-Klavehn, A., & Bjork, R. A. (1988). Measures of memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 475-543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.ps.39.020188.002355.
29. Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umilta, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.004.
30. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 73-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196141.
31. 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, 566-582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.3.566.
32. Szameitat, A. J., Lepsien, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Sterr, A., & Schubert, T. (2006). Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: An event-related fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 541-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0015-5.
33. Szameitat, A. J., Schubert, T., Müller, K., & Von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1184-1199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089892902760807195.
34. Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1-36. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/h0073262.
35. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096- 1523.29.1.3.
36. Welford, A. T. (1952). The 'psychological refractory period' and the timing of high-speeded performance-A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x.