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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639.
Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15, 610–615.
Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. (2005). Voluntary task switching: Chasing the elusive homunculus. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 683–702.
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.
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.
Demanet, J., & Liefooghe, B. (2014). Component processes in voluntary task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 843–860.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Huestegge, L., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Crossmodal action: Modality matters. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 75, 445–451.
Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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.
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.
Kunde, W., Elsner, K., & Kiesel, A. (2007). No anticipation-no action: The role of anticipation in action and perception. Cognitive Processing, 8, 71–78.
Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 862–869.
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.
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.
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.
Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situation. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.
Mayr, U., & Bell, T. (2006). On how to be unpredictable. Psychological Science, 17, 774–780.
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.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
Nickerson, R. S. (2002). The production and perception of randomness. Psychological Review, 109, 330–357.
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.
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.
Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–947.
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.
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.
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.
Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 75, 491–498.
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.
Wiegersma, S. (1982). Can repetition avoidance in randomization be explained by randomness concepts? Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 44, 189–198.
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.
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.
This study was funded by (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, KO 2045/19-1). DFG Priority Program (Schwerpunktprogramm) SPP 1772.
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
About this article
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
- Cognitive control
- Voluntary task switching
- Modality compatibility