Search

Performing two actions at the same time usually hampers performance. Previous studies have demonstrated a strong impact of the particular effector systems on performance in multiple action control situations. However, an open question is whether performance is generally better or worse in situations in which two actions within the same effector system are coordinated (intra-modal actions: e.g., two pedal or two manual actions) compared to situations requiring two different effector systems (cross-modal actions: e.g., a manual combined with a vocal action). Performance differences can be predicated, among others, in the light of encapsulation accounts. Encapsulation of modules on the output side of processing would suggest that actions in two different modules can be triggered simultaneously without significant interference between the actions. Thus, cross-modal actions should lead to better performance compared to intra-modal actions. We investigated this issue in two basic experiments, in which participants responded to a single stimulus (thereby maximizing control over input and central processing stages) with one or two either intra-modal or cross-modal responses (manual-manual vs. manual-oculomotor/manual-vocal in Experiment 1/2, respectively). The results represent clear evidence for a performance advantage of intra-modal over cross-modal action control across both effector system combinations and independent of the particular spatial compatibility relation between responses. The results suggest performance benefits by taking advantage of integrated, holistic representations of intra-modal action compounds., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Performing two actions at the same time (vs. in isolation) usually results in performance costs. However, recent studies have reported that it is also possible to observe dual-action benefits, a finding that challenges standard theories of multiple action control. This issue is typically resolved by assuming that under certain circumstances, performing only one of two possible actions-cognitively represented in terms of what to do-necessitates the costly stopping of the initially activated but unwarranted second action. Here, we test this hypothesis against an alternative inhibitory coding account which rests on the assumption that actions might be cognitively represented in terms of what not to do. Across four experiments, participants responded to a single stimulus with either single or dual responses in the manual and vocal domains, while the relative frequency of response types was systematically manipulated. The results revealed robust dual-action benefits in manual response times and error rates, and the pattern across experiments clearly supported the novel inhibitory coding framework. Crucially, this implies that even though the motor actions required for single and dual responses are physically the same, they are represented very differently. Specifically, dual responses can be represented holistically (noncompositionally). Overall, these findings demonstrate an astonishing flexibility in the mental representation of behavior demands. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The present study asks how behavioral (dual-action) demands in dual tasks are mentally represented and whether changes in representation might govern practice-related dual-task performance improvements. Three different representation accounts were empirically tested based on the idea that dual-action demands required in a dual-task trial might be represented in different ways. According to a compositional (Structuralist) account, component tasks remain structurally intact when combined with another task. In contrast, a holistic (Gestalt) account posits that dual-action requirements in dual tasks are represented holistically and entirely distinct from its component action requirements. Finally, a contextual change account assumes that a change in context (e.g., from single- to dual-action requirement) generally impedes response retrieval, similar to repeating a response while the task context switches. To address this issue, we analyzed trial-by-trial effects in a single/dual switch paradigm (SDS paradigm, involving a randomized mix of single- and dual-task trials within blocks). Specifically, we analyzed performance in an extensive dual-task training setting (involving training sessions across several days) combining an auditory-vocal task and a visual-manual task. The results indicated that, throughout practice, nearly all relevant comparisons of performance between complete switch trials (e.g., between the two single tasks) and partial repetition trials (e.g., from dual to single task) revealed partial repetition benefits, that is, for both the auditory-vocal and the visual-manual task, and for both single- and dual-task performance analyses. Therefore, dual-action requirements in the present dual-task setting are mentally represented in a compositional, Structuralist fashion, probably due to low between-task dimensional overlap., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim:  The present study was designed to investigate how behavioral (dual-action) demands in dual tasks are mentally represented in older adults and how these representations might contribute to the practice-related improvement of dual-task performance. Three different theoretical representation accounts were empirically tested: a structuralist account, a holistic account, and a contextual change account. The first account assumes that component tasks remain structurally intact when combined with another task while the second account assumes that dual-action requirements in dual tasks are represented holistically and entirely distinct from its component (single-action) requirements. The final account assumes that a change in context (e.g., from single to dual requirement) might generally impede response retrieval, similar to repeating a response when the task context switches. Methods:  To address this issue of dual-action representations in older adults, we assessed trial-by-trial effects in a single/dual switch paradigm (involving a randomized mix of single- and dual-task trials within blocks). In detail, we re-analyzed a large set of practice data involving seven sessions, in which an auditory-vocal task was combined with a visual-manual task.  Results:  At the end of practice, the current results were largely consistent with the structuralist account.  Conclusions:  We conclude that dual-action requirements in the present dual-task setting are mentally represented in a predominantly structuralist fashion at the end of practice in older adults. The results are discussed in the context of other theories on practice-related mechanisms of improved dual-task performance in this age group.

When processing of two tasks overlaps, performance is known to suffer. In the well-established psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, tasks are triggered by two stimuli with a short temporal delay (stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA), thereby allowing control of the degree of task overlap. A decrease of the SOA reliably yields longer RTs of the task associated with the second stimulus (Task 2) while performance in the other task (Task 1) remains largely unaffected. This Task 2-specific SOA effect is usually interpreted in terms of central capacity limitations. Particularly, it has been assumed that response selection in Task 2 is delayed due to the allocation of less capacity until this process has been completed in Task 1. Recently, another important factor determining task prioritization has been proposed-namely, the particular effector systems associated with tasks. Here, we study both sources of task prioritization simultaneously by systematically combining three different effector systems (pairwise combinations of oculomotor, vocal, and manual responses) in the PRP paradigm. Specifically, we asked whether task order-based task prioritization (SOA effect) is modulated as a function of Task 2 effector system. The results indicate a modulation of SOA effects when the same (oculomotor) Task 1 is combined with a vocal versus a manual Task 2. This is incompatible with the assumption that SOA effects are solely determined by Task 1 response selection duration. Instead, they support the view that dual-task processing bottlenecks are resolved by establishing a capacity allocation scheme fed by multiple input factors, including attentional weights associated with particular effector systems.

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.

Based on current integration theories of face-voice processing, the present study had participants process 1,152 videos of faces uttering digits. Half of the videos contained face-voice gender-incongruent stimuli (vs. congruent stimuli in the other half). Participants indicated digit magnitude or parity. Tasks were presented in pure blocks (only 1 task) and in task switching blocks (using colored cues to specify task). The results indicate significant congruency effects in pure blocks, but partially reversed congruency effects in task switching, probably due to enhanced assignment of capacity toward resolving difficult situational demands. Congruency effects did not dissipate over time, ruling out that initial surprise associated with incongruent stimuli drove the effects. The results show that interference between two task-irrelevant person-related dimensions (face/voice gender) can affect processing of a third, task-relevant dimension (digit identity), suggesting greater processing ease associated with more authentic voices (i.e., voices that do not violate face-based expectancies).