Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The overall error rates of three participants exceeded 20 % (20.9 %; 21.9 %; 25.3 %). Importantly, if these three participants were excluded, the two-way interaction between congruence and modality compatibility was still clearly significant, F(1, 28) = 9.398, p < .01, η 2p  = .251, indicating a larger congruence effect in modality incompatible tasks than in compatible tasks (10.4 vs. 6.3 %).

References

  • Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.

  • Bruyer, R., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: is the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)? Psychologica Belgica, 51, 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, W. & Kalmar, D. (1987). Characterizing attentional resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 68–81. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.116.1.68.

  • Hughes, M. M., Linck, J. A., Bowles, A. R., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Alternatives to switch-cost scoring in the task-switching paradigm: Their reliability and increased validity. Behavior Research Methods, in press. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0411-5.

  • James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2, chapter XXVI). New York: Holt.

  • Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching – A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: Evidence from manipulating response-set overlap. Psychological Research, 73, 417–424. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0152-8.

  • 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. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.192.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072–1090. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1072.

  • Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, P. & Posner, M.I. (1984). Privileged loops from percept to act. In H. Bouma & D. Bowhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X (pp. 55–66). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 1023–1041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1984). Resources—A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 2, 216–234. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.2.216.

  • Navon, D. (1985). Attention division or attention sharing? In M. Posner & M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and Performance XI (pp. 133–146). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  • Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435–448. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.435.

  • Paelecke, M., & Kunde, W. (2007). Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: evidence from the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 627–644. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.627.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 277–307). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and practice. Boca-Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

  • Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Set- and element-level stimulus–response compatibility effects for different manual response sets. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 351–365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C., & Kleinsorge, T. (2000). Specification of movement amplitudes fort he left and right hands: Evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1091–1101. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1091

  • Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D`Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility in dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 514–525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central cross-talk in task switching: evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1075–1081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75, 491–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D.N., & Koch, I. (2015). Tactile stimuli increase effects of modality compatibility in task switching. Experimental Psychology. in press.

  • Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus–response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201–1217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the action editor Wilfried Kunde, as well as Eric Ruthruff and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on the earlier version of this manuscript. The present research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KO2045/9-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstr. 17-19, 52066, Aachen, Germany

    Denise Nadine Stephan & Iring Koch

Authors
  1. Denise Nadine Stephan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iring Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denise Nadine Stephan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stephan, D.N., Koch, I. Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation. Psychological Research 80, 935–943 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0700-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0700-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation