Skip to main content

Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality

Psychological Research volume 82, pages 121–133 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

The term modality compatibility refers to the similarity between the stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences. Previous research showed evidence for modality compatibility benefits in task switching, when participants switch either between two modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) or between two modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal). However, it remained unclear whether there is also a modality compatibility benefit when participants switch between a modality compatible and an incompatible task. To this end, in Experiment 1, we kept the same design as in earlier studies, so participants had to switch either between modality compatible or modality incompatible spatial discrimination tasks, but in Experiment 2A, participants switched at the response level (manual/vocal) while we kept the stimulus modality constant across tasks, and in Experiment 2B, they switched at the stimulus level (visual/auditory) while we kept the response modality constant across tasks. We found increased switch costs in modality incompatible tasks in Experiment 1, but no such a difference between modality compatible and incompatible tasks in Experiment 2A and 2B, supporting the idea that modality incompatible tasks increase crosstalk, due to the response-based priming of the competing task, but this crosstalk is reduced if the competing task involves either the same stimulus modality or the same response modality. We conclude that a significant impact of modality compatibility in task switching requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Badets, A., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2016). A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis. Psychological Research, 80, 1–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colavita, F. B. (1974). Human sensory dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 409–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göthe, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1970). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 20–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57.

    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., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Understanding central processes: the case against simple stimulus-response associations and for complex task representation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation, 62 (pp. 195–245). Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, A. R., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Multisensory executive functioning. Brain and Cognition, 55, 325–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2, chapter XXVI). New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: evidence from manipulating response-set overlap. Psychological Research, 73, 417–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzfeldt, M., Stephan, D. N., Sturm, W., Willmes, K., & Koch, I. (2015). The role of crossmodal competition and dimensional overlap in crossmodal attention switching. Acta Psychologica, 155, 67–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, M. M., De Santis, L., Thut, G., & Wylie, G. R. (2009). The costs of crossing paths and switching tasks between audition and vision. Brain and Cognition, 69, 47–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paelecke, M., & Kunde, W. (2007). Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: evidence from the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 627–644.

    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.

    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: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1325–1338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). The integration of task-set components into cognitive task representations. Psychologica Belgica, 50, 383–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of response modalities in cognitive task representations. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 7, 31–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Philipp, A. M., Weidner, R., Koch, I., & Fink, G. R. (2013). Differential roles of inferior frontal and inferior parietal cortex in task switching: evidence from stimulus-categorization switching and response-modality switching. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 1910–1920.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157–171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ragot, R., Cave, C., & Fano, M. (1988). Reciprocal effects of visual and auditory stimuli in a spatial compatibility situation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 350–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sandhu, R., & Dyson, B. J. (2012). Re-evaluating visual and auditory dominance through modality switching costs and congruency analyses. Acta Psychologica, 140, 111–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffner, S., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). The role of sensory-motor modality compatibility in language processing. Psychological Research, 80, 212–223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffner, S., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2016). Semantic effects on sensory-motor modality switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 726–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C., & Kleinsorge, T. (2000). Specification of movement amplitudes for the left and right hands: evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1091–1101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D’Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility in dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 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, 1075–1081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75, 491–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2015). Tactile stimuli increase effects of modality compatibility in task switching. Experimental Psychology, 62, 276–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2016). Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation. Psychological Research, 80, 935–943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., Koch, I., Hendler, J., & Huestegge, L. (2013). Task switching, modality compatibility and the supra-modal function of eye movements. Experimental Psychology, 60, 90–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50, 449–455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Edina Fintor, Denise N. Stephan & Iring Koch

Authors
  1. Edina Fintor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denise N. Stephan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iring Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edina Fintor.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, KO 2045/19-1). DFG Priority Program (Schwerpunktprogramm) SPP 1772.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that she has no conflict of interest (financial or non-financial). Moreover, we have full control of all primary data and we agree to allow the journal to review the data if requested.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the present study 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 standard.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

This research was supported by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, KO 2045/19-1). DFG Priority Program (Schwerpunktprogramm) SPP 1772. The authors would like to thank Edita Poljac, Lea Hald, Wilfried Kunde, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. Thanks also go to Maximilan Richter for his help in conducting the experiments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fintor, E., Stephan, D.N. & Koch, I. Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality. Psychological Research 82, 121–133 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0875-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0875-5