Reduced motor preparation during dual-task performance: evidence from startle
Previous studies have used a secondary probe reaction time (RT) task to assess attentional demands of a primary task. The current study used a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) in a probe RT paradigm to test the hypothesis that attentional resources would be directly related to limitations in response preparation. Participants performed an easy or difficult version of a continuous primary task that was either primarily motor in nature (pursuit tracking) or cognitive (counting backward). Concurrently, participants responded to an auditory cue as fast as possible by performing a wrist extension secondary movement. On selected trials, the auditory cue was replaced with a SAS (120 dB), which is thought to involuntarily trigger a prepared response and thus bypass any response initiation bottleneck that may be present when trying to perform two movements. Although startle trials were performed at a shorter latency, both non-startle and startle probe trials resulted in a delayed RT, as compared to single-task trials, consistent with reduced preparation of the secondary task. In addition, analysis of SAS trial RT when a startle indicator was present versus absent provided evidence that the secondary task was at a lowered state of preparation when engaged in the cognitive primary task as compared to a motor primary task, suggesting a facilitative effect on preparatory activation when both the primary and secondary tasks are motoric in nature.
KeywordsActivation Attention Dual-task Probe reaction time Preparation Startle
Supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) discovery grant awarded to ANC (RGPIN: 418361-2012). We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
- Glencross DJ (1978) Response planning and the organization of speed movements. In: Nickerson RS (ed) Attention and performance VII. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 107–125Google Scholar
- Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- Keele SW (1973) Attention and human performance. Goodyear, PalisadesGoogle Scholar
- Morey RD (2008) Confidence intervals from normalized data: a correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 4:61–64Google Scholar
- Posner MI, Keele SW (1969) Attentional demands of movement. In: Proceedings of the 16th congress of applied psychology. Swets and Zeitlinger, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Woodworth RS (1938) Experimental Psychology. Holt, New YorkGoogle Scholar