Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Late backward effects in the refractory period paradigm: effects of Task 2 execution on Task 1 performance

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

Abstract

The central bottleneck model assumes that in the psychological refractory paradigm, Task 1 performance is independent of Task 2 demands. Previous studies, however, have reported backward crosstalk effects of motor demands in Task 2 on Task 1 performance. These effects have been attributed to interference at the central level. The present study aimed to isolate more directly potential backward effects at the motor level. Therefore, in three experiments, movement distance in Task 2 was manipulated using a guided ballistic movement. The results showed that movement distance in Task 2 affected reaction time as well as response duration in Task 1. It is argued that the backward effect observed in this study is due to response coupling at motor rather than central levels.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In all experiments, the backward crosstalk effect was robust because it did not disappear when trials with grouped responses were discarded, i.e., trials with IRIs less than or equal to 100 ms. Furthermore, the effect did not change (p < 0.05) applying different IRI thresholds (i.e., IRI < 50 ms, IRI < 100 ms and IRI < 200 ms). Thus, we reject response grouping as possible explanation for the backward crosstalk effect observed in this study.

References

  • Bratzke, D., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (in press). The source of execution-related task-interference: Motor bottleneck or response monitoring? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.

  • Bratzke, D., Ulrich, R., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., Jentzsch, I., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 61, 1385–1399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caessens, B., Hommel, B., Reynvoet, B., & van der Goten, K. (2004). Backward-compatibility effects with irrelevant stimulus–response overlap: The case of the SNARC effect. Journal of General Psychology, 13, 411–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 965–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freund, H.-J., & Büdingen, H. J. (1978). The relationship between speed and amplitude of the fastest voluntary contractions of human arm muscles. Experimental Brain Research, 31, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giray, M., & Ulrich, R. (1993). Motor coactivation revealed by response force in divided and focused attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1278–1291.

    Article  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 

  • Heuer, H. (1995). Models for response-response compatibility: The effects of relation between responses in a choice task. Acta Psychologica, 90, 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, H. (1996). Coordination. In H. Heuer & S. W. Keele (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action, Vol. 3: Attention (pp. 121–180). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, H., Kleinsorge, T., Spijkers, W., & Steglich, C. (2004). Intermanual cross-talk effects in unimanual choice reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 57, 993–1018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1368–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jentzsch, I., & Dudschig, C. (2009). Why do we slow down after an error? Mechanisms underlying the effects of posterror slowing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 209–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jentzsch, I., Leuthold, H., & Ulrich, R. (2007). Decomposing sources of response slowing in the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 610–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klapp, S. T. (1995). Motor response programming during simple and choice reaction time: The role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1015–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 192–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S., & Yu, Y.-T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 133–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Delheimer, J. A. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual task situations. II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 668–685.

    Article  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 & Performance, 26, 1072–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research, 70, 484–493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Alderton, M. (2006). Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Reynolds, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and non-targets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 1126–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Ulrich, R. (2007). Bimanual response grouping in dual-task paradigms. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 61, 999–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mordkoff, J. T., Miller, J., & Roch, A. C. (1996). Absence of coactivation in the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, A., Kornblum, S., & Meyer, D. E. (1990). Does motor programming necessitate response execution? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 358–377.

    Article  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., & Christian, C. (1994). Bottlenecks in planning and producing vocal, manual, and foot responses. UCSD Center for Human Information Processing Technical Report.

  • Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 41, 19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A., Zelaznik, H. W., Hawkins, B., Frank, J. S., & Quinn, J. T. (1979). Motor-output variability: A theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychological Review, 86, 415–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter, H. (2006). Programming of time-to-peak force for brief isometric force pulses: Effects on reaction time. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1277–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Performance, 30, 566–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spijkers, W., & Heuer, H. (1995). Structural constraints on the performance of symmetrical bimanual movements with different amplitudes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 48, 716–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Kleinsorge, T., & van der Loo, H. (1997). Preparation of bimanual movements with same and different amplitudes: Specification interference as revealed by reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 96, 207–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C., & Kleinsorge, T. (2000). Specification of movement amplitudes for the left and right hands: Evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1091–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steglich, C., Heuer, H., Spijkers, W., & Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Bimanual coupling during the specification of isometric forces. Experimental Brain Research, 129, 302–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typing. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117–152). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 75–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R., Ruiz Fernández, S., Jentzsch, I., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., & Leuthold, H. (2006). Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions. Psychological Science, 17, 788–793.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R., & Wing, A. M. (1991). A recruitment theory of force–time relations in the production of brief force pulses: The parallel force unit model. Psychological Review, 98, 268–294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, A. T. (1952). The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high-speed performance—A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Thilo Rommel for his assistance in data collection and Anja Fiedler, Daniel Bratzke, Hannes Schröter, Tanja Leonhard, especially Eric Ruthruff, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (UL 116/11-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive and Biological Psychology, University of Tübingen, Friedrichstr. 21, 72072, Tübingen, Germany

    Susana Ruiz Fernández & Rolf Ulrich

Authors
  1. Susana Ruiz Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rolf Ulrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susana Ruiz Fernández.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ruiz Fernández, S., Ulrich, R. Late backward effects in the refractory period paradigm: effects of Task 2 execution on Task 1 performance. Psychological Research 74, 378–387 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0260-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0260-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation