Literature DB >> 26878090

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

Katrin Göthe1, Klaus Oberauer2, Reinhold Kliegl3.   

Abstract

We tested the independent influences of two content-based factors on dual-task costs, and on the parallel processing ability: The pairing of S-R modalities and the pairing of relevant features between stimuli and responses of two tasks. The two pairing factors were realized across four dual-task groups. Within each group the two tasks comprised two different stimulus modalities (visual and auditory), two different relevant stimulus features (spatial and verbal) and two response modalities (manual and vocal). Pairings of S-R modalities (standard: visual-manual and auditory-vocal, non-standard: visual-vocal and auditory-manual) and feature pairings (standard: spatial-manual and verbal-vocal, non-standard: spatial-vocal and verbal-manual) varied across groups. All participants practiced their respective dual-task combination in a paradigm with simultaneous stimulus onset before being transferred to a psychological refractory period paradigm varying stimulus-onset asynchrony. A comparison at the end of practice revealed similar dual-task costs and similar pairing effects in both paradigms. Dual-task costs depended on modality and feature pairings. Groups training with non-standard feature pairings (i.e., verbal stimulus features mapped to spatially separated response keys, or spatial stimulus features mapped to verbal responses) and non-standard modality pairings (i.e., auditory stimulus mapped to manual response, or visual stimulus mapped to vocal responses) had higher dual-task costs than respective standard pairings. In contrast, irrespective of modality pairing dual-task costs virtually disappeared with standard feature pairings after practice in both paradigms. The results can be explained by crosstalk between feature-binding processes for the two tasks. Crosstalk was present for non-standard but absent for standard feature pairings. Therefore, standard feature pairings enabled parallel processing at the end of practice.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bottleneck; Modality pairings; Parallel processing; Representational overlap

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26878090     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  12 in total

Review 1.  The dual-task practice advantage: Empirical evidence and cognitive mechanisms.

Authors:  Tilo Strobach
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-02

2.  Crosstalk, not resource competition, as a source of dual-task costs: Evidence from manipulating stimulus-action effect conceptual compatibility.

Authors:  Jonathan Schacherer; Eliot Hazeltine
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-03-10

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Effects of task probability on prioritized processing: Modulating the efficiency of parallel response selection.

Authors:  Jeff Miller; Jia Li Tang
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  On the effects of multimodal information integration in multitasking.

Authors:  Ann-Kathrin Stock; Krutika Gohil; René J Huster; Christian Beste
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-07       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Mechanisms of Practice-Related Reductions of Dual-Task Interference with Simple Tasks: Data and Theory.

Authors:  Tilo Strobach; Schubert Torsten
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2017-03-31

10.  Effects of Input Modality on Vocal Effector Prioritization in Manual-Vocal Dual Tasks.

Authors:  Mareike A Hoffmann; Melanie Westermann; Aleks Pieczykolan; Lynn Huestegge
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2020-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.