S1-R2 and R1-R2 Backward Crosstalk Both Affect the Central Processing Stage

Valentin Koob; Moritz Durst; Daniel Bratzke; Rolf Ulrich; Markus Janczyk

doi:10.5334/joc.121

Abstract

A frequent observation in dual-task experiments is that performance in Task 1 is influenced by conceptual or spatial overlap with features of Task 2. Such compatibility-based backward crosstalk effects (BCEs) can occur when overlap exists between the responses of two tasks–the R1-R2 BCE–or between the stimulus in Task 1 and the response in Task 2–the S1-R2 BCE. The present study investigated whether the S1-R2 BCE has a perceptual locus, and by implication, whether the two BCEs have a common processing locus or different ones. To this end, we applied the additive factors logic and manipulated the duration of the Task 1 perceptual stage. The results argue against a perceptual locus for both BCEs. As a possible explanation, we suggest that the R1-R2 BCE and the S1-R2 BCE have their locus within a capacity-limited central stage, but that they arise from different processes within this stage. The R1-R2 BCE influences Task 1 response selection, whereas the S1-R2 BCE influences Task 1 stimulus classification. A plausible though post-hoc model is presented within the Discussion.

References

Brüning, J., Mückstein, M., & Manzey, D. (in press). Multitasking strategies make the difference: Separating processing code resources boosts multitasking efficiency when individuals prefer to interleave tasks in free concurrent dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000865
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Durst, M., & Janczyk, M. (2018). The motor locus of no-go backward crosstalk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(12), 1931–1946. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000565
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Durst, M., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Two types of backward crosstalk: Sequential modulations and evidence from the diffusion model. Acta Psychologica, 193, 132–152. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.013
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ellenbogen, R., & Meiran, N. (2008). Working memory involvement in dual-task performance: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Memory & Cognition, 36, 968–978. DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.5.968
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ellenbogen, R., & Meiran, N. (2011). Objects and events as determinants of parallel processing in dual tasks: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 152–167. DOI: 10.1037/a0019958
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fagot, C., & Pashler, H. (1992). Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1058–1079. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1058
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Giammarco, M., Thomson, S. J., & Watter, S. (2016). Dual-task backward compatibility effects are episodically mediated. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(2), 520–541. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-015-0998-y
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.24.5.1368
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66(4), 260–273. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-002-0100-y
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Janczyk, M. (2016). Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(5), 631–647. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000170
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Janczyk, M., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Effects of a no-go Task 2 on Task 1 performance in dual-tasking: From benefits to costs. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(3), 796–806. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-016-1257-6
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2020). Dual tasking from a goal perspective. Psychological Review. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000222
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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(1), 30–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Wallmeier, G., & Kunde, W. (2014). Exceptions to the PRP effect? A comparison of prepared and unconditioned reflexes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 776–786. DOI: 10.1037/a0035548
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Janczyk, M., Renas, S., & Durst, M. (2018). Identifying the locus of compatibility-based backward crosstalk: Evidence from an extended PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(2), 261–276. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000445
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Johnston, J. C., & McCann, R. S. (2006). On the locus of dual-task interference: Is there a bottleneck at the stimulus classification stage? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 694–719. DOI: 10.1080/02724980543000015
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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(5), 849–874. DOI: 10.1037/a0019842
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ko, Y. T., & Miller, J. (2014). Locus of backward crosstalk effects on task 1 in a psychological refractory period task. Experimental Psychology, 61(1), 30–37. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000224
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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(6), 557–583. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000144
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(4), 1260–1280. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.26.4.1260
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 212–238. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196277
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S., & Yu, Y.-T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 133–141. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194040
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Logan, G. D., & Delheimer, J. A. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 668–685. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.668
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1072–1090. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1072
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Masson, M. E. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 679–690. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104(4), 749–791. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.749
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Miller, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research, 70(6), 484–493. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0011-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Miller, J., & Durst, M. (2014). “Just do it when you get a chance”: The effects of a background task on primary task performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(8), 2560–2574. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0730-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 273–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.08.003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-4.2. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44(3), 193–251. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0767
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(1), 19–45. DOI: 10.1080/14640748908402351
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Renas, S., Durst, M., & Janczyk, M. (2018). Action effect features, but not anatomical features, determine the backward crosstalk effect: Evidence from crossed-hands experiments. Psychological Research, 82(5), 970–980. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-017-0873-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rieger, T., & Miller, J. (2020). Disentangling stimulus and response compatibility as potential sources of backward crosstalk. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 1–17. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-020-02039-6
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Röttger, E., & Haider, H. (2017). Investigating the characteristics of “not responding”: backward crosstalk in the PRP paradigm with forced vs. free no-go decisions. Psychological Research, 81(3), 596–610. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-016-0772-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sanders, A. F. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331–354). Amsterdam: North Holland. DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61955-X
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 376–397. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.376
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schweickert, R. (1978). A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a stroop task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18(2), 105–139. DOI: 10.1016/0022-2496(78)90059-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thomson, S. J., Danis, L. K., & Watter, S. (2015). PRP training shows Task1 response selection is the locus of the backward response compatibility effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 212–218. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0660-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thomson, S. J., Watter, S., & Finkelshtein, A. (2010). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations via automatic category-to-response translation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(7), 1791–1802. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.7.1791
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57(2), 75–121. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.06.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(2), 254–277. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193674
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance–a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 2–19. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

S1-R2 and R1-R2 Backward Crosstalk Both Affect the Central Processing Stage

Abstract

Paradigm

My account