Search

A frequent observation in dual-tasking is that spatially or conceptually (in)compatible Task 2 response features can interfere with responses in Task 1 (backward crosstalk effect; BCE). Such between-task interference is, at least to some degree, under strategic control. It has been shown that the size of the BCE can be modulated by instructions, contextual regularities, recent experience of conflict, and motivational factors. Especially large temporal task overlap (i.e., short stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA) represents a condition of potentially high levels of between-task interference. Accordingly, Fischer and Dreisbach (2015) showed that specific stimuli, associated with mostly short SOAs, were able to reduce the size of the BCE. In the present study, we investigated whether a regular sequence of SOAs can also be used for contextual regulation of the BCE. In a dual-task with spatially (in)compatible hand- and foot-responses, we implemented a repeating sequence of three SOAs. If participants learned this sequence and used it for task shielding, the BCE should decrease over time in the sequence blocks, but should increase in a subsequent random block. However, this prediction was not supported in two experiments (N = 32 each). Instead, the size of the BCE was constant across all blocks (BFs 10  < 1 for the respective interactions). This is an important result, as it points at the necessity to discover the appropriate conditions allowing implicit SOA sequence learning and to further investigate whether or how the resulting implicit sequence knowledge can serve shielding against between-task interference., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

In dual tasking, two different kinds of between-task conflict occur. Because in both cases, Task 2 characteristics affect Task 1 performance, they are commonly referred to as backward crosstalk effects (BCE): One with a conflict at the response selection stage when Task 1 and Task 2 have dimensional overlap (the compatibility-based BCE) and one with a conflict at the motor execution stage when response inhibition resulting from a Task 2 no-go-trial interferes with simultaneous response execution in Task 1 (the no-go BCE). Recent research suggests that these BCEs differ not only in their underlying cognitive processes, but also in how cognitive control is regulated. Here, we investigated whether both can be produced in a single dual-task set up and whether they trigger their respective processing adjustments (i.e., a sequential modulation). In three experiments, participants categorized numbers as smaller or larger than 5 in Task 1. In Experiments 1 and 2, numbers were responded to irrespective of numerical size (go-response) as Task 2. Further, dimensional overlap was provided by (non)corresponding size information in both stimuli, which was strengthened in Experiment 2 by presenting S1 and S2 in the same/different color in compatible/incompatible trials, respectively. In Experiment 3, participants were required to perform a number-size categorization also in Task 2, establishing strong dimensional overlap by activating the same or different response categories in both tasks. In all three experiments, the number 5 served as the no-go stimulus in Task 2 to induce a no-go BCE on Task 1. By and large, our results show that both types of between-task conflicts not only occur within the same type of BCE, but they also trigger their respective sequential modulation., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s).)

Objective: To determine whether response-effect (R-E) compatibility or stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility is more critical for touchless gesture responses., Background: Content on displays can be moved in the same direction (S-R incompatible but R-E compatible) or opposite direction (S-R compatible but R-E incompatible) as the touchless gesture that produces the movement. Previous studies suggested that it is easier to produce a button-press response when it is R-E compatible (and S-R incompatible). However, whether this R-E compatibility effect also occurs for touchless gesture responses is unknown., Method: Experiments 1 and 2 employed an R-E compatibility manipulation in which participants made responses with an upward or downward touchless gesture that resulted in the display content moving in the same (compatible) or opposite (incompatible) direction. Experiment 3 employed an S-R compatibility manipulation in which the stimulus occurred at the upper or lower location on the screen., Results: Overall, only negligible influences of R-E compatibility on performing the touchless gestures were observed (in contrast to button-press responses), whereas S-R compatibility heavily affected the gestural responses., Conclusion: The R-E compatibility obtained in many previous studies with various types of responses appears not to hold for touchless gestures as responses., Application: The results suggest that in the design of touchless interfaces, unique factors may contribute to determining which mappings of gesture and display movements are preferred by users.

Studies with the retro-cue paradigm have shown that validly cueing objects in visual working memory long after encoding can still benefit performance on subsequent change detection tasks. With regard to the effects of invalid cues, the literature is less clear. Some studies reported costs, others did not. We here revisit two recent studies that made interesting suggestions concerning invalid retro-cues: One study suggested that costs only occur for larger set sizes, and another study suggested that inclusion of invalid retro-cues diminishes the retro-cue benefit. New data from one experiment and a reanalysis of published data are provided to address these conclusions. The new data clearly show costs (and benefits) that were independent of set size, and the reanalysis suggests no influence of the inclusion of invalid retro-cues on the retro-cue benefit. Thus, previous interpretations may be taken with some caution at present.

Valued by statisticians, enforced by editors, and confused by many authors, standard errors (SEs) and confidence intervals (CIs) remain a controversial issue in the psychological literature. This is especially true for the proper use of CIs for within-subjects designs, even though several recent publications elaborated on possible solutions for this case. The present paper presents a short and straightforward introduction to the basic principles of CI construction, in an attempt to encourage students and researchers in cognitive psychology to use CIs in their reports and presentations. Focusing on a simple but prevalent case of statistical inference, the comparison of two sample means, we describe possible CIs for between- and within-subjects designs. In addition, we give hands-on examples of how to compute these CIs and discuss their relation to classical t-tests.

Flexible behavior is only possible if contingencies between own actions and following environmental effects are acquired as quickly as possible; and recent findings indeed point toward an immediate formation of action-effect bindings already after a single coupling of an action and its effect. The present study explored whether these short-term bindings occur for both, stimulus- and goal-driven actions ("forced-choice actions" vs. "free-choice actions"). Two experiments confirmed that immediate action-effect bindings are formed for both types of actions and affect upcoming behavior. These findings support the view that action-effect binding is a ubiquitous phenomenon which occurs for any type of action.

The spray drying technique was used to obtain the roxithromycin containing microcapsules with high taste masking efficiency. Eudragit L30D-55 was chosen as a barrier coating. The taste was evaluated by an electronic tongue, and taste-masking effect in water lasted at least several dozen hours.