Literature DB >> 26377338

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

Denise Nadine Stephan1, Iring Koch2.   

Abstract

The present study was aimed at examining modality-specific influences in task switching. To this end, participants switched either between modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) or incompatible spatial discrimination tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal). In addition, auditory and visual stimuli were presented simultaneously (i.e., bimodally) in each trial, so that selective attention was required to process the task-relevant stimulus. The inclusion of bimodal stimuli enabled us to assess congruence effects as a converging measure of increased between-task interference. The tasks followed a pre-instructed sequence of double alternations (AABB), so that no explicit task cues were required. The results show that switching between two modality incompatible tasks increases both switch costs and congruence effects compared to switching between two modality compatible tasks. The finding of increased congruence effects in modality incompatible tasks supports our explanation in terms of ideomotor "backward" linkages between anticipated response effects and the stimuli that called for this response in the first place. According to this generalized ideomotor idea, the modality match between response effects and stimuli would prime selection of a response in the compatible modality. This priming would cause increased difficulties to ignore the competing stimulus and hence increases the congruence effect. Moreover, performance would be hindered when switching between modality incompatible tasks and facilitated when switching between modality compatible tasks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26377338     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-015-0700-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  27 in total

1.  Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory.

Authors:  G D Logan; M D Schulkind
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Specification of movement amplitudes for the left and right hands: evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance.

Authors:  W Spijkers; H Heuer; C Steglich; T Kleinsorge
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 3.  A review of contemporary ideomotor theory.

Authors:  Yun Kyoung Shin; Robert W Proctor; E J Capaldi
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: an fMRI study.

Authors:  Christine Stelzel; Eric H Schumacher; Torsten Schubert; Mark D'Esposito
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2005-09-21

5.  The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference.

Authors:  Eliot Hazeltine; Eric Ruthruff; Roger W Remington
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2006-04-11       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance.

Authors:  Sarah Lukas; Andrea M Philipp; Iring Koch
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2009-06-11

7.  The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching.

Authors:  Denise Nadine Stephan; Iring Koch
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2011-08-21

Review 8.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy.

Authors:  S Kornblum; T Hasbroucq; A Osman
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism.

Authors:  A G Greenwald
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1970-03       Impact factor: 8.934

10.  Toward a translational model of Stroop interference.

Authors:  R A Virzi; H E Egeth
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1985-07
View more
  6 in total

1.  Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality.

Authors:  Edina Fintor; Denise N Stephan; Iring Koch
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-06-03

2.  Modality compatibility biases voluntary choice of response modality in task switching.

Authors:  Edina Fintor; Edita Poljac; Denise N Stephan; Iring Koch
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-06-20

3.  Feature Integration and Task Switching: Diminished Switch Costs after Controlling for Stimulus, Response, and Cue Repetitions.

Authors:  James R Schmidt; Baptist Liefooghe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Exploring Modality Compatibility in the Response-Effect Compatibility Paradigm.

Authors:  Noémi Földes; Andrea M Philipp; Arnaud Badets; Iring Koch
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2017-03-31

5.  Crossmodal Effects in Task Switching: Modality Compatibility with Vocal and Pedal Responses.

Authors:  Denise Nadine Stephan; Johanna Josten; Erik Friedgen; Iring Koch
Journal:  J Cogn       Date:  2021-01-21

6.  Dissociating stimulus-response compatibility and modality compatibility in task switching.

Authors:  Erik Friedgen; Iring Koch; Denise Nadine Stephan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-02-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.