Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: evidence from manipulating response-code overlap

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

Abstract

The present study examined the role of crosstalk in dual-task interference using a combination of a nonspeeded visual task and an auditory-manual reaction time (RT) task. The potential for dual-task crosstalk was introduced by presenting in the visual task objects (e.g., a cup with a handle), which “afford” associated responses that were either spatially compatible or incompatible with the response in the RT task. Crucially, the degree of crosstalk was varied by instructing participants either to attend to the left–right orientation of the objects, creating explicit cross-task response-code overlap (“strong crosstalk”), or to attend to object identity (no direct overlap; “weak crosstalk”). The data indicated a relative benefit for cross-task compatible trials, which was much greater with strong crosstalk than with weak crosstalk. Crucially, however, even on compatible trials dual-task performance was substantially worse with strong crosstalk than with weak crosstalk. This overall cost of crosstalk suggests interference of response codes even on compatible dual-task trials.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azuma, R., Prinz, W., & Koch, I. (2004). Dual-task slowing and effects of cross-task compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 693–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1339–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, H. (1996). Doppeltätigkeiten. In O. Neumann, & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie (Vol. Aufmerksamkeit, pp. 163–218). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2008). Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses (Manuscript submitted for publication).

  • Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1999). Attentional and structural constraints on visual encoding. Psychological Research, 62, 154–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur, P., Tombu, M., Oriet, C., & Stevanovski, B. (2002). From perception to action: Making the connection. In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 558–586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2008). Mechanismen der Interferenz in Doppelaufgaben [Mechanisms of dual-task interference]. Psychologische Rundschau, 59, 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Jolicoeur, P. (2007). Orthogonal cross-task compatibility: Abstract spatial coding in dual tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 45–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Metin, B., & Schuch, S. (2003). The role of temporal uncertainty for process interference and code overlap in perception-action dual tasks. Psychological Research, 67, 244–252.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2005). Response preparation and code overlap in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1085–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Rumiati, R. I. (2006). Task-set inertia and memory-consolidation bottleneck in dual tasks. Psychological Research, 70, 448–458.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.

    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 & 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., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2008). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology (in press).

  • 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 

  • Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193–251.

    Article  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, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R. (2002). S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9, 540–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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 

  • Rumiati, R. I., & Humphreys, G. W. (1998). Recognition by action: dissociating visual and semantic routes to action in normal observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 631–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance (in press).

  • 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 and Performance, 30, 566–582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 830–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Wenke, D., & Brass, M. (2008). Cross-talk of instructed and applied arbitrary visuomotor mappings. Acta Psychologica, 127, 30–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wenke, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2005). The influence of task instructions on action coding: Constraint setting or direct coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 803–819.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wenke, D., Gaschler, R., & Nattkemper, D. (2007). Instruction-based feature binding. Psychological Research, 71, 92–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Iring Koch

Authors
  1. Iring Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iring Koch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0152-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation