Skip to main content

Modality compatibility biases voluntary choice of response modality in task switching

Abstract

The term modality compatibility refers to the similarity between stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences (e.g., vocal responses produce auditory effects). The previous results showed smaller task-switching costs when participants switched between modality compatible tasks (auditory–vocal and visual–manual) compared to switching between modality incompatible tasks (auditory–manual and visual–vocal). In the present study using a voluntary task-switching paradigm (VTS), participants chose the response modality (vocal or manual) to indicate the location of either a visual or an auditory stimulus. We examined whether free task choices were biased by modality compatibility, so that modality compatible tasks are preferred in VTS. The choice probability analysis indicated that participants tended to choose the response modality that is compatible to the stimulus modality. However, participants did not show a preference to repeat a stimulus–response (S–R) modality mapping, but to switch between modality compatibility (i.e., from S–R modality compatible mapping to S–R modality incompatible mapping and vice versa). More interestingly, even though participants freely chose the response modality, modality compatibility still influenced task-switching costs, showing larger costs with modality incompatible mappings. The finding that modality compatibility influenced choice behaviour suggests components of both top–down control and bottom–up effects of selecting a response modality for different stimulus modalities.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15, 610–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. (2005). Voluntary task switching: Chasing the elusive homunculus. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 683–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 Psychologische Forschung, 80, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Demanet, J., & Liefooghe, B. (2014). Component processes in voluntary task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 843–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Demanet, J., Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Voluntary task switching under load: Contribution of top-down and bottom-up factors in goal-directed behavior. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 387–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fintor, E., Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2018a). The interplay of crossmodal attentional preparation and modality compatibility in cued task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818771836(Advance online publication).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fintor, E., Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2018b). Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: Modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 82, 121–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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  Google Scholar 

  12. 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  Google Scholar 

  13. Greenwald, A. G., & Shulman, H. G. (1973). On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 70–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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  Google Scholar 

  15. 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). Campbridge: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Huestegge, L., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Crossmodal action: Modality matters. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 75, 445–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. 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  Google Scholar 

  19. Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—an integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 557–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kunde, W., Elsner, K., & Kiesel, A. (2007). No anticipation-no action: The role of anticipation in action and perception. Cognitive Processing, 8, 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 862–869.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liefooghe, B., Demanet, J., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Persisting activation in voluntary task switching: It all depends on the instruction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 381–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lien, M.-C., & Ruthruff, E. (2008). Inhibition of task set: Converging evidence from task choice in the voluntary task-switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1111–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Logan, G. D. (2007). What it costs to implement a plan: Plan-level and task-level contributions to switch costs. Memory & Cognition, 35, 591–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mayr, U., & Bell, T. (2006). On how to be unpredictable. Psychological Science, 17, 774–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nickerson, R. S. (2002). The production and perception of randomness. Psychological Review, 109, 330–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Orr, M. J., Carp, J., & Weissmann, H. D. (2012). The influence of response conflict on voluntary task switching: A novel test of the conflict monitoring model. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76, 60–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schacherer, J., & Hazeltine, E. (2017). How conceptual overlap and modality pairings affect task-switching and mixing costs. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0932-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stelzel, C., & Schubert, T. (2011). Interference effects of stimulus-response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 75, 476–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 Psychologische Forschung, 70, 514–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wiegersma, S. (1982). Can repetition avoidance in randomization be explained by randomness concepts? Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 44, 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yeung, N. (2010). Bottom-up influences on voluntary task switching: The elusive homunculus escapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 348–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, KO 2045/19-1) within the framework of the DFG Priority Program (Schwerpunktprogramm) SPP 1772. The authors would like to thank Eliot Hazeltine and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. Thanks also goes to Maximilian Richter for recruiting participants and for running the experiment.

Funding

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edina Fintor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have 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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fintor, E., Poljac, E., Stephan, D.N. et al. Modality compatibility biases voluntary choice of response modality in task switching. Psychological Research 84, 380–388 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1040-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cognitive control
  • Voluntary task switching
  • Modality compatibility