Abstract
In a dual-task paradigm, a visual-encoding task with a deferred verbal report of a moving target was combined with a speeded task, in which participants prepared a precued leftward or rightward keypress response that was withheld until an auditory go signal. We manipulated the interval between the response cue and the target for the visual-encoding task, the interval between this target and the go signal, and spatial cross-task compatibility between the direction of the target movement in the visual task and the speeded manual response. The results of two experiments suggest that visual encoding interferes with response preparation and with the initiation of the prepared manual response at a short target—go interval. Also, responses were faster in compatible than in incompatible trials, indicating a cross-task compatibility effect. Experiment 2 reversed this compatibility effect by instruction, suggesting that the compatibility effect is based on response—response overlap. In both experiments, response preparation impaired accuracy in the visual task. Taken together, these results suggest that response processes and visual encoding share common codes and processes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Arnell, K. M., &Duncan, J. (2002). Separate and shared sources of dual-task cost in stimulus identification and response selection.Cognitive Psychology,44, 105–147.
Azuma, R., Prinz, W., &Koch, I. (2004). Dual-task slowing and effects of cross-task compatibility.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57A, 693–713.
Carrier, L. M., &Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1339–1348.
De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., &Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus—response correspondence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 731–750.
De Jong, R., &Sweet, J. B. (1994). Preparatory strategies in overlapping-task performance.Perception & Psychophysics,55, 142–151.
Hommel, B. (1996). S—R compatibility effects without response uncertainty.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 546–571.
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus—response translation in dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1368–1384.
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., &Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,24, 849–937.
Hommel, B., &Prinz, W. (Eds.) (1997).Theoretical issues in stimulus— response compatibility. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ivanoff, J. (2003). On spatial response code activation in a Simon task.Acta Psychologica,112, 157–179.
Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Dual-task interference and visual encoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 596–616.
Jolicoeur, P., &Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of shortterm consolidation.Cognitive Psychology,36, 138–202.
Jolicoeur, P., &Dell’Acqua, R. (1999). Attentional and structural constraints on visual encoding.Psychological Research,62, 154–164.
Jolicoeur, P., Tombu, M., Oriet, C., &Stevanovski, B. (2002). From perception to action: Making the connection. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.),Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 558–586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koch, I., Metin, B., &Schuch, S. (2003). The role of temporal uncertainty for process interference and code overlap in perception—action dual tasks.Psychological Research,67, 244–252.
Koch, I., &Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 192–201.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus—response compatibility. A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 253–270.
Kunde, W., Koch, I., &Hoffmann, J. (2004). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57A, 87–106.
Lien, M.-C., &Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1260–1280.
Lien, M.-C., &Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus—response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 212–238.
Logan, G. D., &Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations.Psychological Review,108, 393–434.
Logan, G. D., &Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1072–1090.
Meyer, D. E., &Kieras, D. E. (1999). Précis to a practical unified theory of cognition and action: Some lessons from EPIC computational models of human multiple-task performance. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.),Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance. Interaction of theory and application (pp. 17–88). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Müsseler, J., &Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 861–872.
Müsseler, J., &Wühr, P. (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.),Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 520–537). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Navon, D., &Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion.Cognitive Psychology,44, 193–251.
Pashler, H. (1993). Dual-task interference and elementary mental mechanisms. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.),Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 245–264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory.Psychological Bulletin,116, 220–244.
Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 277–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 408–425.
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 & Performance,30, 566–582.
Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., &Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Blinded by headlights.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,56, 65–74.
Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., &Jolicoeur, P. (2003). Can blindness to response-compatible stimuli be observed in the absence of a response?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 431–440.
Tombu, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon.Psychological Research,66, 274–286.
Tombu, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 3–18.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koch, I., Prinz, W. Response preparation and code overlap in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition 33, 1085–1095 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193215
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193215