Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Searching working memory for the source of dual-task costs

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

Abstract

Dual-task costs depend on the specific pairings of stimulus and response modalities. Such findings are analogous to domain-specific effects in the working memory (WM) literature, in which items compete for limited capacity when they involve related types of information. The present study explicitly examines the relationship between modality-pairing effects on dual-task costs and domain-specificity effects on WM capacity. Participants maintained a sequence of either locations or tones in WM, and then performed a choice reaction time task in which they responded either vocally or manually. The stimuli for the choice reaction time task were held constant, but its response modality affected the interference observed in WM: vocal responses interfered with WM for tones and manual responses interfered with WM for locations. These findings indicate that response selection engages domain-specific WM processes and that interference within these processes may account for modality-pairing effects.

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

  • Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Taatgen, N. A., & Byrne, M. D. (2005). Learning to achieve perfect timesharing: Architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, and Ivry (2002). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 749–761.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., Grant, S., Wight, E., & Thomson, N. (1975). Imagery and visual working memory. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and Performance (Vol. 5) (pp. 205–217). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8) (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In M. Akira & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocchini, G., Logie, R. H., Della Sala, S., MacPherson, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Concurrent performance of two memory tasks: Evidence for domain-specific working memory systems. Memory and Cognition, 30, 1086–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, D. J., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44) (pp. 145–199). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S–R Compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70, 504–513.

    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 

  • Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527–545.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2010). Crossmodal action selection: Evidence from dual-task compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 38, 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1979). On the use of a concurrent memory load to measure attention and automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maquestiaux, F., Laguë-Beauvais, M., Ruthruff, E., & Bherer, L. (2008). Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1262–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 471–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of human multiple task performance: The EPIC information-processing architecture and strategic response deferment model. Psychological Review, 104, 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1984). Resources—A theoretical soupstone? Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214–255.

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H., & Hazeltine, E. (2003). Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement? Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 801–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central attentional bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D’Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 514–525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and Performance (Vol. VIII, pp. 239–257). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D., & Liu, Y. (1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors, 30, 599–616.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing and output. Human Factors, 25, 227–248.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Chen, A., & West, R. (2010). The influence of working memory load on the Simon effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 687–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, E11 Seashore Hall, Iowa City, IA, 52241, USA

    Eliot Hazeltine & Timothy Wifall

Authors
  1. Eliot Hazeltine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy Wifall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eliot Hazeltine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hazeltine, E., Wifall, T. Searching working memory for the source of dual-task costs. Psychological Research 75, 466–475 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0343-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0343-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation