Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interference effects of stimulus–response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness

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

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that the degree of interference in dual-task situations depends crucially on the pairings of input- and output modalities of the two component tasks with increased dual-task costs for modality incompatible (i.e., visual–vocal and auditory–manual) compared to modality compatible (i.e., visual–manual and auditory–vocal) dual tasks. These effects of modality pairings in dual tasks have been related to the overlap of non-preferred processing pathways in modality incompatible tasks. Until now, modality compatibility has not yet been related to other sources of interference in a dual-task context, such as stimulus–response (S–R) compatibility or crosstalk. In the present study, we conducted two experiments using the paradigm of the psychological refractory period (PRP) to test the effects of S–R compatibility and crosstalk on the effects of modality compatibility in temporally overlapping task situations. Experiment 1 revealed an overadditive interaction between stimulus onset asynchrony and modality compatibility for tasks with S–R compatible mappings, indicating that modality compatibility effects are present in different task situations, even when S–R mappings are otherwise compatible. In Experiment 2, we aimed at pinpointing the boundaries of the effects of modality compatibility in dual-task situations. We showed that additional sources of dual-task interference in a modality compatible dual task could overwrite the pronounced PRP effect previously shown for modality incompatible tasks. Taken together, these data provide new evidence that the specific types of stimulus–response modality pairings are an additional factor that might interact with other sources of interference in dual-task situations.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that the inclusion of the between subject factor stimulus order did not change the pattern of results reported below.

References

  • Atchley, P., & Dressel, J. (2004). Conversation limits the functional field of view. Human Factors, 46(4), 664–673.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atchley, P., Dressel, J., Jones, T., Burson, R., & Marshall, D. (2011). Talking and driving: applications of crossmodal action reveal a special role for spatial language. Psychological Research (this issue).

  • Cohen, A., & Feintuch, U. (2002). The dimensional-action system: a distinct visual system. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action (Vol. 19, pp. 587–608). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuster, J. M. (2000). Executive frontal functions. Experimental Brain Research, 133(1), 66–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1972). Evidence of both perceptual filtering and response suppression for rejected messages in selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(1), 58–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70(6), 504–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine, E., & Wifall, T. (2011). Searching working memory for the source of dual-task costs. Psychological Research (this issue).

  • 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(4), 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(3), 527–545.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2009). Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(2), 352–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2010). Crossmodal action selection: evidence from dual-task compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 38(4), 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel, M., & Cohen, A. (2011). Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance. Psychological Research (this issue).

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility. A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270.

    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(2), 212–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 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 and performance, 26(3), 1072–1090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research, 70(6), 494–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 408–425.

    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 and Performance, 34(2), 376–397.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T., & Szameitat, A. J. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of interference in overlapping dual tasks: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 733–746.

    Article  PubMed  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 and Performance, 30(3), 566–582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychology Science, 12(2), 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. H., Schwarb, H., Lightman, E., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task. Psychological Research (this issue).

  • Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biology, 4(7), e220.

    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(6), 514–525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research (this issue).

  • Virzi, R., & Egeth, H. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13(4), 304–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, A. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance: a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C., Sandry, D., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 25(2), 227–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, G., Sumowski, J. F., & Murray, M. (2011). Are there control processes, and (if so) can they be studied? Psychological Research (this issue).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Mind and Brain Research, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Christine Stelzel

  2. Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802, Munich, Germany

    Torsten Schubert

  3. Department of Psychology, Humboldt University Berlin, Rudower Chausse 18, 12489, Berlin, Germany

    Christine Stelzel & Torsten Schubert

Authors
  1. Christine Stelzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torsten Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Stelzel.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 52 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stelzel, C., Schubert, T. Interference effects of stimulus–response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness. Psychological Research 75, 476–490 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0368-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0368-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation