Abstract
In dual-task situations, mutual interference phenomena are often observed. One particularly interesting example of such phenomena is that even Task 1 performance is improved if Task 2 requires a compatible (e.g., both responses are given on the left side) instead of an incompatible response (e.g., one response is given on the right side, and the other on the left side). This is called the compatibility-based backward crosstalk effect (BCE). In a previous paper, we observed support for a critical role of stimulus–response (S–R) links in causing this effect: The BCE was smaller when one of the two tasks was a free choice task. However, an alternative explanation for this observation is that free choice tasks lead to immediate conflict adaptation, thereby reducing the interference from the other task. In the present two experiments, we tested this explanation by varying the amount of conflict assumed to be induced by a free choice task either sequentially (Exp. 1) or block-wise (Exp. 2). While we replicated a sequential modulation of the BCE with two forced choice tasks, we observed (1) no reduction of the BCE induced by (compatible) free choice trials nor (2) an effect of block-wise manipulations of the frequency of free choice trials on the size of the BCE. Thus, while the BCE is sensitive to sequential modulations induced by the (in)compatibility of two forced choice responses, which might point to conflict adaptation, the reduced BCE in dual-task situations involving a free choice task is likely due to its weaker S–R links.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akçay Ç, Hazeltine E (2007) Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: two sources of sequential modulations. Psychon Bull Rev 14:742–748. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196831
Berlyne DE (1957) Conflict and choice time. Br J Psychol 48:106–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1957.tb00606.x
Botvinick MM, Braver TS, Barch DM et al (2001) Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev 108:624–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
Braem S, Abrahamse EL, Duthoo W, Notebaert W (2014) What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis, and proposed synthesis. Front Psychol 5:1134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01134
Bugg JM, Crump MJC (2012) In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: a review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Front Psychol 3:367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367
Crump MJC, Gong Z, Milliken B (2006) The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: location as a contextual cue. Psychon Bull Rev 13:316–321. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193850
Dignath D, Janczyk M, Eder AB (2017) Phasic valence and arousal do not influence post-conflict adjustments in the Simon task. Acta Psychol 174:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.01.004
Ellenbogen R, Meiran N (2008) Working memory involvement in dual-task performance: evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Mem Cognit 36:968–978. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.5.968
Ellenbogen R, Meiran N (2011) Objects and events as determinants of parallel processing in dual tasks: evidence from the backward compatibility effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:152–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019958
Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW (1974) Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept Psychophys 16:143–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
Fischer R, Dreisbach G (2015) Predicting high levels of multitasking reduces between-tasks interactions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 41:1482–1487. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000157
Fischer R, Plessow F, Kunde W, Kiesel A (2010) Trial-to-trial modulations of the Simon effect in conditions of attentional limitations: evidence from dual tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:1576–1594. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019326
Fischer R, Gottschalk C, Dreisbach G (2014) Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 40:399–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034310
Frith CD, Friston K, Liddle PF, Frackowiak RS (1991) Willed action and the prefrontal cortex in man: a study with PET. Proc Biol Sci 244:241–246. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1991.0077
Giammarco M, Thomson SJ, Watter S (2016) Dual-task backward compatibility effects are episodically mediated. Atten Percept Psychophys 78:520–541. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0998-y
Gollwitzer PM (1999) Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol 54:493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
Goschke T, Dreisbach G (2008) Conflict-triggered goal shielding: response conflicts attenuate background monitoring for prospective memory cues. Psychol Sci 19:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02042.x
Gratton G, Coles MGH, Donchin E (1992) Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. J Exp Psychol Gen 121:480–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480
Herwig A, Prinz W, Waszak F (2007) Two modes of sensorimotor integration in intention-based and stimulus-based actions. Q J Exp Psychol 60:1540–1554. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601119134
Hommel B (1998) Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:1368–1384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.5.1368
Hommel B, Eglau B (2002) Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychol Res 66:260–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0100-y
Janczyk M (2016) Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 42:631–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000170
Janczyk M, Leuthold H (2018) Effector system-specific sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychon Bull Rev 25:1066–1072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1311-y
Janczyk M, Pfister R, Hommel B, Kunde W (2014) Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition 132:30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001
Janczyk M, Dambacher M, Bieleke M, Gollwitzer PM (2015a) The benefit of no choice: goal-directed plans enhance perceptual processing. Psychol Res 79:206–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0549-5
Janczyk M, Nolden S, Jolicoeur P (2015b) No differences in dual-task costs between forced- and free-choice tasks. Psychol Res 79:463–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0580-6
Janczyk M, Renas S, Durst M (2018) Identifying the locus of compatibility-based backward crosstalk: evidence from an extended PRP paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 44:261–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000445
Kiesel A, Wagener A, Kunde W et al (2006) Unconscious manipulation of free choice in humans. Conscious Cognit 15:397–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.10.002
Lien M-C, Proctor RW (2000) Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26(4):1260–1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.4.1260
Lien M-C, Proctor RW (2002) Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection. Psychon Bull Rev 9:212–238. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196277
Mattler U, Palmer S (2012) Time course of free-choice priming effects explained by a simple accumulator model. Cognition 123:347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.002
Mayr U, Awh E (2009) The elusive link between conflict and conflict adaptation. Psychol Res 73:794–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0191-1
Miller J, Ulrich R (2008) Bimanual response grouping in dual-task paradigms. Q J Exp Psychol 61:999–1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701434540
Naefgen C, Janczyk M (2018) Free choice tasks as random generation tasks: an investigation through working memory manipulations. Exp Brain Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5295-2
Naefgen C, Caissie AF, Janczyk M (2017a) Stimulus-response links and the backward crosstalk effect—a comparison of forced- and free-choice tasks. Acta Psychol 177:23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.03.010
Naefgen C, Dambacher M, Janczyk M (2017b) Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations. Psychol Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0887-1
Notebaert W, Gevers W, Verbruggen F, Liefooghe B (2006) Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychon Bull Rev 13:112–117. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193821
Pashler H (1984) Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10:358–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.358
Pashler H (1994) Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychol Bull 116:220–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220
Pfister R, Janczyk M (2013) Confidence intervals for two sample means: calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Adv Cogn Psychol 9:74–80. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0133-x
Renas S, Durst M, Janczyk M (2017) Action effect features, but not anatomical features, determine the backward crosstalk effect: evidence from crossed-hands experiments. Psychol Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0873-7
Scherbaum S, Fischer R, Dshemuchadse M, Goschke T (2011) The dynamics of cognitive control: evidence for within-trial conflict adaptation from frequency-tagged EEG. Psychophysiology 48:591–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01137.x
Scherbaum S, Gottschalk C, Dshemuchadse M, Fischer R (2015) Action dynamics in multitasking: the impact of additional task factors on the execution of the prioritized motor movement. Front Psychol 6:934. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00934
Schmidt JR (2013) Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: conflict adaptation or learning when to respond? PLoS ONE 8:e82320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082320
Schuch S, Dignath D, Steinhauser M, Janczyk M (2018) Monitoring and control in multitasking. Psychon Bull Rev. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1512-z
Stürmer B, Leuthold H (2003) Control over response priming in visuomotor processing: a lateralized event-related potential study. Exp Brain Res 153:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1579-1
Stürmer B, Leuthold H, Soetens E et al (2002) Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28:1345–1363. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.6.1345
Thomson SJ, Danis LK, Watter S (2015) PRP training shows Task1 response selection is the locus of the backward response compatibility effect. Psychon Bull Rev 22:212–218. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0660-z
Ulrich R, Miller J (2008) Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: models and contamination effects. Cogn Psychol 57:75–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.06.004
Watter S, Logan GD (2006) Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Percept Psychophys 68:254–277. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193674
Wirth R, Janczyk M, Kunde W (2018) Effect monitoring in dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 44:553–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000474
Funding
This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; German Research Foundation), Grant JA 2307/1-2 awarded to Markus Janczyk. Work of MJ is further supported by the Institutional Strategy of the University of Tübingen (DFG ZUK 63).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Appendix
Appendix
This Appendix reports the analyses of Task 2 performance in Experiments 1 and 2 (“Experiment 1: Task 2 results” and “Experiment 2: Task 2 results” sections) and the full analyses of the 2 × 2 × 2 design employed in Experiment 1 (“Experiment 1, full design: Task 1 results” section for Task 1 performance and “Experiment 1, full design: Task 2 results” section for Task 2 performance).
Experiment 1: Task 2 results
Mean correct RT2s (2.61% excluded as outliers) are summarized in Table 4. Responses were faster in compatible trials than in incompatible trials, t(35) = 6.05, p < .001, showing an overall forward crosstalk effect (FCE). Contrast 1 was significant, t(35) = 4.30, p < .001, as was Contrast 2, t(35) = 6.07, p < .001. Contrast 1 interacted with compatibility, t(35) = 11.61, p < .001, and so did Contrast 2, t(35) = 2.13, p = .040. The latter indicates a reduced FCE following compatible free (vs. compatible forced) choice Task 1 trials.
Paired t-tests indicated significant FCEs for trials following compatible free choice prime trials, t(35) = 7.14, p < .001, d = 1.68, as well as compatible forced choice prime trials, t(35) = 10.38, p < .001, d = 2.45. Following incompatible forced choice prime trials, the FCE was reversed, t(35) = − 3.72, p = .001, d = − .88.
Mean PE2s are summarized in Table 4. The compatibility in the test trial, t(35) = 3.33, p = .002, had a significant influence on PE2s. Furthermore, Contrast 1 was significant, t(35) = 3.84, p < .001, while Contrast 2 was not, t(35) = 0.73, p = .469. Contrast 1 interacted with compatibility, t(35) = 6.30, p < .001, while Contrast 2 did not t(35) = 0.64, p = .523. For the differences in PE2s between compatible and incompatible trials, paired t-tests indicated significant differences for trials following compatible free, t(35) = 4.13, p < .001, d = 0.97, and forced choice prime trials, t(35) = 5.41, p < .001, d = 1.27, as well as, in the other direction, those following incompatible forced choice prime trials, t(35) = − 3.35, p = .002, d = − 0.79.
Experiment 2: Task 2 results
Mean Task 2 RT2s (2.18% excluded as outliers) are summarized in Table 5. There was a significant FCE, F(1,35) = 38.59, p < .001, η 2p = .97, as well as a significant effect of the block type, F(2,70) = 7.94, p = .001, η 2p = .18, but no significant interaction, F(2,70) = 0.46, p = .630, η 2p = .01. Paired t-tests indicated significant FCEs for all block types, 25% free choices, t(35) = 5.99, p < .001, d = 1.41; 50% free choices, t(35) = 5.34, p < .001, d = 1.26; and 75% free choices, t(35) = 4.20, p < .001, d = 0.99.
Mean PE2s are summarized in Table 5. The compatibility in the test trial had a significant effect on PE2 s with fewer errors in compatible trials, F(1,35) = 10.53, p = .003, η 2p = .23. Neither the block type, F(2,70) = .01, p = .985, η 2p < .01, nor its interaction with compatibility, F(2,70) = .10, p = .905, η 2p < .01, was significant.
Experiment 1, full design: Task 1 results
This section describes RT1s (2.09% excluded as outliers) and PE1s of the full 2 × 2 × 2 (compatibility in the test trial × compatibility in the prime trial × task type in the prime trial) design of Experiment 1. Only test trials were used in this analysis. Mean values are summarized in Table 6. There was a significant main effect of compatibility in the test trial, F(1,35) = 31.77, p < .001, η 2p = .48, and of task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 65.61, p < .001, η 2p = .65. There was no main effect of compatibility in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 0.03, p = .874, η 2p < .01. There were significant interactions between compatibility in the test and in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 92.87, p < .001, η 2p = .73, the compatibility in the test trial and the task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 4.76, p = .036, η 2p = .12, and between all three factors, F(1,35) = 17.75, p < .001, η 2p = .34. There was no significant interaction between task type and compatibility in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 2.81, p = .103, η 2p = .07.
For the PE1s, there were main effects for the compatibility in the test trial, F(1,35) = 12.44, p = .001, η 2p = .26, the compatibility in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 5.01, p = .032, η 2p = .13, as well as task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 25.69, p < .001, η 2p = .42. There was an interaction between compatibility of the test and the prime trial, F(1,35) = 28.71, p < .001, η 2p = .45. There was no interaction between the compatibility of the test trial and task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 0.04, p = .852, η 2p < .01, task type in the prime trial and compatibility in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 0.48, p = .493, η 2p = .01, nor between all three factors, F(1,35) = 0.06, p = .815, η 2p < .01.
Experiment 1, full design: Task 2 results
This section describes RT2s (2.45% excluded as outliers) and PEs of the full 2 × 2 × 2 (compatibility in the test trial × compatibility in the prime trial × task type in the prime trial) design of Experiment 1. Only test trials were used in this analysis. Mean values are summarized in Table 4. There was a significant main effect of compatibility in the test trial, F(1,35) = 32.48, p < .001, η 2p = .48, and task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 57.53, p < .001, η 2p = .62. There was no main effect of compatibility in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 0.91, p = .346, η 2p = .03. There were significant interactions between compatibility in the test and the prime trial, F(1,35) = 103.50, p < .001, η 2p = .75, the compatibility in the test trial and task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 5.97, p = .020, η 2p = .15, and all three factors, F(1,35) = 29.99, p < .001, η 2p = .46. There was no significant interaction between compatibility and task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 3.44, p = .072, η 2p = .09.
For the PE2 s, there were main effects for the compatibility in the test trial, F(1,35) = 12.33, p = .001, η 2p = .26, and the compatibility in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 10.28, p = .003, η 2p = .23. There were significant interactions between compatibility in the test and in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 33.38, p < .001, η 2p = .49, the compatibility in the test trial and task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 10.43, p = .003, η 2p = .23, the compatibility and task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 6.08, p = .019, η 2p = .15, as well as all three factors, F(1,35) = 11.45, p = .002, η 2p = .25. There was no main effect for task type in the prime trial, F(1,35) = 0.37, p = .548, η 2p = .01.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Naefgen, C., Janczyk, M. Smaller backward crosstalk effects for free choice tasks are not the result of immediate conflict adaptation. Cogn Process 20, 73–85 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0887-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0887-0