Advertisement

Embodied cognition in multitasking: increased hand-specific task shielding when stimuli are presented near the hand

  • Rico FischerEmail author
  • Roman LiepeltEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The proximity of hand position alters the processing of visual stimuli. Stimuli presented close (proximal) to hands receive an enhanced allocation of visual attention compared to stimuli presented far (distal) from hands. In the present dual-task study we studied the consequences of this preferential processing when the stimulus for Task 1 (S1) and the stimulus for Task 2 (S2) were presented together and were assigned to specific response hands (R1 and R2) located proximal (at the monitor) versus distal (in the lap) to the stimuli. In two experiments, we tested whether stimulus–hand proximity affected the extent of between-task interference (i.e., influence of additional Task 2 processing on primary Task 1 processing). In Experiment 1, results showed that stimulus–hand proximity reduced the amount of between-task interference compared to the distal stimulus–hand condition. Extending these findings, in Experiment 2 a further reduction of between-task interference was obtained when a single hand was located at the monitor instead of two hands. These results are inconsistent with the assumption of a generally increased attentional processing benefit for multiple stimuli within hand space. Instead, these findings speak for a hand-specific processing benefit that supports more separate processing of two tasks. Together these findings demonstrate that stimulus–hand proximity affects the quality of multiple task performance, which is discussed in the context of both, basic and applied cognitive research.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Robert Görsch, Sophia Hammer, and Isabelle Althaus for assistance in data collection and Kimberly Halvorson for valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was supported by grants within the Priority Program SPP 1772 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) grant no FI 1624/3-1 and LI 2115/2-1 awarded to both authors.

Funding

This study was funded by grants within the Priority Program, SPP 1772 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), grant no FI 1624/3-1 awarded to R.F. and LI 2115/2-1 awarded to R.L.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human and animal participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in the study.

References

  1. Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., 3rd, & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035–1047.Google Scholar
  2. Abrams, R. A., & Weidler, B. J. (2014). Trade-offs in visual processing for stimuli near the hands. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 76(2), 383–390.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0583-1.Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.Google Scholar
  4. Brockmole, J. R., Davoli, C. C., Abrams, R. A., & Witt, J. K. (2013). The World within reach: Effects of hand posture and tool use on visual cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 38–44.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412465065.Google Scholar
  5. Bush, W. S., & Vecera, S. P. (2014). Differential effect of one versus two hands on visual processing. Cognition, 133(1), 232–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.014.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W. (2014). Conceptual response distance and intervening keys distinguish action goals in the Stroop color-identification task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1238–1243.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0605-6.Google Scholar
  7. Davoli, C. C., & Abrams, R. A. (2009). Reaching out with the imagination. Psychological Science, 20(3), 293–295.Google Scholar
  8. Davoli, C. C., & Brockmole, J. R. (2012). The hands shield attention from visual interference. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 74(7), 1386–1390.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0351-7.Google Scholar
  9. Davoli, C. C., Brockmole, J. R., Du, F., & Abrams, R. A. (2012). Switching between global and local scopes of attention is resisted near the hands. Visual Cognition, 20(6), 659–668.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2012.683049.Google Scholar
  10. Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Montana, J., Garverick, S., & Abrams, R. A. (2010). When meaning matters, look but don’t touch: The effects of posture on reading. Memory & Cognition, 38(5), 555–562.  https://doi.org/10.3758/Mc.38.5.555.Google Scholar
  11. Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784–1790.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1594.Google Scholar
  12. Englert, J., & Wentura, D. (2016). Hand posture and cognitive control: The congruency sequence effect is reduced near the hands. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1000-2.Google Scholar
  13. Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007). Controlling attention through action: observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3351–3355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.012.Google Scholar
  14. Feng, S. F., Schwemmer, M., Gershman, S. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2014). Multitasking versus multiplexing: Toward a normative account of limitations in the simultaneous execution of control-demanding behaviors. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(1), 129–146.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0236-9.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). Predicting high levels of multitasking reduces between-tasks interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(6), 1482–1487.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000157.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, R., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). Shielding and relaxation in multitasking: Prospect of reward counteracts relaxation of task shielding in multitasking. Acta Psychologica, 191, 112–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.09.002.Google Scholar
  17. Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 399–416.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034310.Google Scholar
  18. Fischer, R., & Hommel, B. (2012). Deep thinking increases task-set shielding and reduces shifting flexibility in dual-task performance. Cognition, 123, 303–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.015.Google Scholar
  19. Fischer, R., Miller, J., & Schubert, T. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1685–1699.Google Scholar
  20. Fischer, R., & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking: Parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1366.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01366.Google Scholar
  21. Garza, J. P., Strom, M. J., Wright, C. E., Roberts, R. J., Jr., & Reed, C. L. (2013). Top-down influences mediate hand bias in spatial attention. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 75(5), 819–823.Google Scholar
  22. Goodhew, S. C., & Clarke, R. (2016). Contributions of parvocellular and magnocellular pathways to visual perception near the hands are not fixed, but can be dynamically altered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 156–162.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0844-1.Google Scholar
  23. Goodhew, S. C., Edwards, M., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2015). Altered visual perception near the hands: A critical review of attentional and neurophysiological models. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 55, 223–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.05.006.Google Scholar
  24. Goodhew, S. C., Fogel, N., & Pratt, J. (2014). The nature of altered vision near the hands: evidence for the magnocellular enhancement account from object correspondence through occlusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(6), 1452–1458.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0622-5.Google Scholar
  25. Goodhew, S. C., Gozli, D. G., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2013). Reduced temporal fusion in near-hand space. Psychological Science, 24(6), 891–900.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612463402.Google Scholar
  26. Gothe, K., Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2016). Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings. Cognition, 150, 92–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.003.Google Scholar
  27. Gozli, D. G., West, G. L., & Pratt, J. (2012). Hand position alters vision by biasing processing through different visual pathways. Cognition, 124(2), 244–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.008.Google Scholar
  28. Graziano, M. S., & Gross, C. G. (1995). From eye to hand. In J. King & K. H. Pribram (Eds.), Scale in conscious experience: Is the brain too important to be left to specialists to study? (pp. 117–129). Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Graziano, M. S., & Gross, C. G. (1998). Spatial maps for the control of movement. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8(2), 195–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(98)80140-2.Google Scholar
  30. Graziano, M. S., Yap, G. S., & Gross, C. G. (1994). Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. Science, 266(5187), 1054–1057.Google Scholar
  31. Halvorson, K. M., Ebner, H., & Hazeltine, E. (2013). Investigating perfect timesharing: the relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 413–432.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029475.Google Scholar
  32. Halvorson, K. M., & Hazeltine, E. (2015). Do small dual-task costs reflect ideomotor compatibility or the absence of crosstalk? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1403–1409.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0813-8.Google Scholar
  33. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384.Google Scholar
  34. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. (discussion 878-937).Google Scholar
  35. Hosang, T. J., Fischer, R., Pomp, J., & Liepelt, R. (2018). Multitasking in the near-hand space: Effects of stimulus–hand proximity on between-task shifts at the bottleneck. Frontiers in Psychology.Google Scholar
  36. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport, 7(14), 2325–2330.Google Scholar
  37. Janczyk, M. (2016). Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(5), 631–647.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000170.Google Scholar
  38. Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132(1), 30–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001.Google Scholar
  39. Janczyk, M., Renas, S., & Durst, M. (2017). Identifying the locus of compatibility-based backward crosstalk: Evidence from an extended PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000445.Google Scholar
  40. Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: evidence from manipulating response-code overlap. Psychological Research, 73(3), 417–424.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0152-8.Google Scholar
  41. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.Google Scholar
  42. Lakens, D., Schneider, I. K., Jostmann, N. B., & Schubert, T. W. (2011). Telling things apart: The distance between response keys influences categorization times. Psychological Science, 22(7), 887–890.  https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976114123910956797611412391.Google Scholar
  43. Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 143–148.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410370295.Google Scholar
  44. Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 212–238.Google Scholar
  45. Liepelt, R., & Fischer, R. (2016). Task demands determine hand posture bias on conflict processing in a Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(2), 579–586.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0901-9.Google Scholar
  46. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434.Google Scholar
  47. 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(3), 1072–1090.Google Scholar
  48. Maquestiaux, F., Ruthruff, E., Defer, A., & Ibrahime, S. (2018). Dual-task automatization: The key role of sensory-motor modality compatibility. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(3), 752–772.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1469-4.Google Scholar
  49. Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86.Google Scholar
  50. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3–65.Google Scholar
  51. 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(6), 484–493.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0011-9.Google Scholar
  52. Miller, J., & Reynolds, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(6), 1126–1142.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.11262003-09958-003.Google Scholar
  53. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 435–448.Google Scholar
  54. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44(3), 193–251.  https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0767S0010028501907674.Google Scholar
  55. Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2012). Better not to deal with two tasks at the same time when stressed? Acute psychosocial stress reduces task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(3), 557–570.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0098-6.Google Scholar
  56. Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2017). Successful voluntary recruitment of cognitive control under acute stress. Cognition, 168, 182–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.016.Google Scholar
  57. Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches. Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  58. Reed, C. L., Betz, R., Garza, J. P., & Roberts, R. J. (2010). Grab it! Biased attention in functional hand and tool space. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 72(1), 236–245.  https://doi.org/10.3758/App.72.1.236.Google Scholar
  59. Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., & Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: Attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 166–177.Google Scholar
  60. Schendel, K., & Robertson, L. C. (2004). Reaching out to see: Arm position can attenuate human visual loss. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(6), 935–943.  https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041502698.Google Scholar
  61. Scherbaum, S., Gottschalk, C., Dshemuchadse, M., & Fischer, R. (2015). Action dynamics in multitasking: The impact of additional task factors on the execution of the prioritized motor movement. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 934.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00934.Google Scholar
  62. Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 376–397.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.376.Google Scholar
  63. Schultheis, H., & Carlson, L. A. (2013). Determinants of attentional modulation near the hands. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 858.  https://doi.org/10.3389/Fpsyg.2013.00858.Google Scholar
  64. Stelzel, C., Brandt, S. A., & Schubert, T. (2009). Neural mechanisms of concurrent stimulus processing in dual tasks. Neuroimage, 48(1), 237–248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.064.Google Scholar
  65. Stelzel, C., & Schubert, T. (2011). Interference effects of stimulus-response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness. Psychological Research, 75(6), 476–490.Google Scholar
  66. 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(4), 1075–1081.Google Scholar
  67. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75(6), 491–498.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0353-4.Google Scholar
  68. Taylor, J. E., Gozli, D. G., Chan, D., Huffman, G., & Pratt, J. (2015). A touchy subject: advancing the modulated visual pathways account of altered vision near the hand. Translational Neuroscience, 6(1), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1515/tnsci-2015-0001.Google Scholar
  69. Taylor, J. E., & Witt, J. K. (2014). Altered attention for stimuli on the hands. Cognition, 133(1), 211–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.019.Google Scholar
  70. Thomas, L. E. (2015). Grasp posture alters visual processing biases near the hands. Psychological Science, 26(5), 625–632.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571418.Google Scholar
  71. Thomson, S. J., Danis, L. K., & Watter, S. (2014). PRP training shows Task1 response selection is the locus of the backward response compatibility effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 15.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0660-z.Google Scholar
  72. Tseng, P., & Bridgeman, B. (2011). Improved change detection with nearby hands. Experimental Brain Research, 209(2), 257–269.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2544-z.Google Scholar
  73. Weidler, B. J., & Abrams, R. A. (2014). Enhanced cognitive control near the hands. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 462–469.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0514-0.Google Scholar
  74. Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2012). Conflict-induced perceptual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 675–686.  https://doi.org/10.1037/A0025902.Google Scholar
  75. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.Google Scholar
  76. Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1479–1492.  https://doi.org/10.1037/A0010781.Google Scholar
  77. Zwosta, K., Hommel, B., Goschke, T., & Fischer, R. (2013). Mood states determine the degree of task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognition and Emotion, 27(6), 1142–1152.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.772047.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Psychology, German Sport University CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations