Literature DB >> 32323163

Ideomotor compatibility enables automatic response selection.

François Maquestiaux1,2, Morgan Lyphout-Spitz3, Eric Ruthruff4, Mahé Arexis3.   

Abstract

A task is ideomotor (IM)-compatible when there is high conceptual similarity between the stimulus and the associated response (e.g., pressing a left key when an arrow points to the left). For such an easy task, can response selection operate automatically, bypassing the attentional bottleneck that normally constrains dual-task performance? To address this question, we manipulated the IM compatibility of a Task 2 that was performed concurrently with a non-IM-compatible Task 1, using the psychological refractory period procedure. Single-task trials, randomly intermixed with dual-task trials, served as a baseline against which to assess dual-task costs. The results indicated bottleneck bypassing (i.e., simultaneous response selection on both tasks) when Task 2 was IM-compatible, as evidenced by negligible dual-task costs on Task 2 (as well as on Task 1), very high percentages of response reversals, and weak correlations between Task-1 and Task-2 reaction times. These findings were supported by a fine-grained simulation analysis of inter-response intervals. We conclude that the perception of an IM-compatible stimulus directly activates the response code, which can then be selecting automatically, without recruiting central attention, consistent with A. G. Greenwald's (Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52-57, 1972) original theory of IM compatibility.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automaticity; Central bottleneck; Dual-task interference; Ideomotor compatibility; Response selection

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32323163     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-020-01735-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  7 in total

1.  Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification.

Authors:  Mei-Ching Lien; Robert W Proctor; Philip A Allen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?

Authors:  Eric Ruthruff; James C Johnston; Mark Van Selst; Shelly Whitsell; Roger Remington
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible.

Authors:  Anthony G Greenwald
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Dual-task performance with ideomotor-compatible tasks: is the central processing bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus?

Authors:  Mei-Ching Lien; Robert S McCann; Eric Ruthruff; Robert W Proctor
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Learning to achieve perfect timesharing: architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, and Ivry (2002).

Authors:  John R Anderson; Niels A Taatgen; Michael D Byrne
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Investigating perfect timesharing: the relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance.

Authors:  Kimberly M Halvorson; Herschel Ebner; Eliot Hazeltine
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice.

Authors:  Eliot Hazeltine; Donald Teague; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.332

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.