12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Effects of Input Modality on Vocal Effector Prioritization in Manual–Vocal Dual Tasks

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract. Doing two things at once (vs. one in isolation) usually yields performance costs. Such decrements are often distributed asymmetrically between the two actions involved, reflecting different processing priorities. A previous study (Huestegge & Koch, 2013) demonstrated that the particular effector systems associated with the two actions can determine the pattern of processing priorities: Vocal responses were prioritized over manual responses, as indicated by smaller performance costs (associated with dual-action demands) for the former. However, this previous study only involved auditory stimulation (for both actions). Given that previous research on input–output modality compatibility in dual tasks suggested that pairing auditory input with vocal output represents a particularly advantageous mapping, the question arises whether the observed vocal-over-manual prioritization was merely a consequence of auditory stimulation. To resolve this issue, we conducted a manual–vocal dual task study using either only auditory or only visual stimuli for both responses. We observed vocal-over-manual prioritization in both stimulus modality conditions. This suggests that input–output modality mappings can (to some extent) attenuate, but not abolish/reverse effector-based prioritization. Taken together, effector system pairings appear to have a more substantial impact on capacity allocation policies in dual-task control than input–output modality combinations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory.

          People often have trouble performing 2 relatively simple tasks concurrently. The causes of this interference and its implications for the nature of attentional limitations have been controversial for 40 years, but recent experimental findings are beginning to provide some answers. Studies of the psychological refractory period effect indicate a stubborn bottleneck encompassing the process of choosing actions and probably memory retrieval generally, together with certain other cognitive operations. Other limitations associated with task preparation, sensory-perceptual processes, and timing can generate additional and distinct forms of interference. These conclusions challenge widely accepted ideas about attentional resources and probe reaction time methodologies. They also suggest new ways of thinking about continuous dual-task performance, effects of extraneous stimulation (e.g., stop signals), and automaticity. Implications for higher mental processes are discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part I. Basic mechanisms.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance.

              The authors present the central capacity sharing (CCS) model and derive equations describing its behaviors to explain results from dual-task situations. The predictions of the CCS model are contrasted with those of the central bottleneck model. The CCS model predicts all of the hallmark effects of the psychological refractory period (PRP) pardigm: -1 slope of the PRP effect at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), underadditivity of precentral Task 2 manipulations, additivity of central or postcentral Task 2 manipulations with SOA, and carry forward to Task 2 of Task 1 precentral or central manipulations at short SOAs. The CCS model also predicts that Task 1 response times increase with decreasing SOA. The model is a viable alternative to the central bottleneck model.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Exp Psychol
                Exp Psychol
                zea
                Experimental Psychology
                Hogrefe Publishing
                1618-3169
                2190-5142
                June 9, 2020
                2020
                : 67
                : 1
                : 48-55
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Institute of Psychology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
                [ 2 ]Human Technology Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
                Author notes
                Mareike A. Hoffmann, Institute of Psychology, University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 11, 97070 Würzburg, Germany, mareike.a.hoffmann@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1028-5049
                Article
                10.1027/1618-3169/a000479
                8878545
                32520669
                cba17b82-fc7b-41cb-92e6-d970cfe5c607
                >© 2020 Hogrefe Publishing

                Distributed under the Hogrefe OpenMind License (https://doi.org/10.1027/a000001)

                History
                : July 1, 2019
                : February 5, 2020
                : April 14, 2020
                Funding
                Funding: This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation, HU 1847/4-1) to Lynn Huestegge.
                Categories
                Short Research Article

                cognitive control,dual-task performance,vocal prioritization,capacity allocation,effector systems

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content78

                Most referenced authors150