Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Task-set inertia and memory-consolidation bottleneck in dual tasks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three dual-task experiments examined the influence of processing a briefly presented visual object for deferred verbal report on performance in an unrelated auditory-manual reaction time (RT) task. RT was increased at short stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) relative to long SOAs, showing that memory consolidation processes can produce a functional processing bottleneck in dual-task performance. In addition, the experiments manipulated the spatial compatibility of the orientation of the visual object and the side of the speeded manual response. This cross-task compatibility produced relative RT benefits only when the instruction for the visual task emphasized overlap at the level of response codes across the task sets (Experiment 1). However, once the effective task set was in place, it continued to produce cross-task compatibility effects even in single-task situations (“ignore” trials in Experiment 2) and when instructions for the visual task did not explicitly require spatial coding of object orientation (Experiment 3). Taken together, the data suggest a considerable degree of task-set inertia in dual-task performance, which is also reinforced by finding costs of switching task sequences (e.g., AC → BC vs. BC → BC) in Experiment 3.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan & A. M. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Azuma, R., Prinz, W., & Koch, I. (2004). Dual-task slowing and effects of cross-task compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 693–713.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1339–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 2–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1368–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., & Doeller, C. F. (2005). Selection and consolidation of objects and actions. Psychological Research, 69, 157–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1999). Attentional and structural constraints on visual encoding. Psychological Research, 62, 154–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur, P., Tombu, M., Oriet, C., & Stevanovski, B. (2002). From perception to action: Making the connection. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 558–586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2005). Response preparation and code overlap in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition (in press).

  • Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 192–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 556–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in cognitive science, 7, 134–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 861–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 277–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumiati, R. I., & Humphreys, G. W. (1998). Recognition by action: Dissociating visual and semantic routes to action in normal observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 631–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 538–552). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 830–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8, 769–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Pierre Jolicoeur, Dorit Wenke, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on a previous version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Iring Koch, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Department of Psychology, Amalienstrasse 33, D-80799 Munich, Germany. E-mail: iring.koch@cbs.mpg.de.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arbeitsbereich Psychologie, Max-Planck-Institut für Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften, Amalienstrasse 33, 80799, München, Germany

    Iring Koch

  2. Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, Trieste, Italy

    Raffaella I. Rumiati

Authors
  1. Iring Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raffaella I. Rumiati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iring Koch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koch, I., Rumiati, R.I. Task-set inertia and memory-consolidation bottleneck in dual tasks. Psychological Research 70, 448–458 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0020-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0020-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation