Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sources of interference in cross-modal action: response selection, crosstalk, and general dual-execution costs

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

Abstract

Performing several actions simultaneously usually yields interference, which is commonly explained by referring to theoretical concepts such as crosstalk and structural limitations associated with response selection. While most research focuses on dual-task scenarios (involving two independent tasks), we here study the role of response selection and crosstalk for the control of cross-modal response compounds (saccades and manual responses) triggered by a single stimulus. In two experiments, participants performed single responses and spatially compatible versus incompatible dual-response compounds (crosstalk manipulation) in conditions with or without response selection requirements (i.e., responses either changed randomly between trials or were constantly repeated within a block). The results showed that substantial crosstalk effects were only present when response (compound) selection was required, not when a pre-selected response compound was merely repeated throughout a block of trials. We suggest that cross-response crosstalk operates on the level of response selection (during the activation of response codes), not on the level of response execution (when participants can rely on pre-activated response codes). Furthermore, we observed substantial residual dual-response costs even when neither response incompatibility nor response selection requirements were present. This suggests additional general dual-execution interference that occurs on a late, execution-related processing stage and even for two responses in rather distinct (manual and oculomotor) output modules. Generally, the results emphasize the importance of considering oculomotor interference in theorizing on multiple-action control.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We decided to report here the direct comparison of the incompatible conditions from both experiments. Additionally, we computed an analysis including the R–R incompatible condition of Experiment 2 with the R–R compatible condition of Experiment 1 (analogous to Experiment 1 analyses). The results do not contradict the findings in Experiment 1. Importantly, our main finding in Experiment 1, namely the interaction of response condition, RS, and R–R compatibility, was replicated showing that crosstalk has a larger impact on dual-response interference under increased RS demands and therefore operates rather on the level of RS than on the level of response execution.

References

  • Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1957). Uncertainty and conflict: A point of contact between information-theory and behavior-theory concepts. Psychological Review, 64, 329–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. E., & Gregory, M. (1967). Psychological refractory period and the length of time required to make a decision. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 168, 181–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christina, R. W., Fischman, M. G., Vercruyssen, M. J. P., & Anson, J. G. (1982). Simple reaction time as a function of response complexity: Memory drum theory revisited. Journal of Motor Behavior, 74, 301–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danek, R. H., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2011). Unequal motor durations under simple-, go/no-go, and choice-RT tasks: Extension of Miller and Low (2001). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1323–1329.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donders, F. C. (1869). Over de snelheid van psychische processen. Translated (1969): On the speed of mental processes. Acta Psychologica, 30, 412–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellenbogen, R., & Meiran, N. (2010). 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, 152–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1058–1079.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garry, M. I., & Franks, I. M. (2000). Reaction time differences in spatially constrained bilateral and unilateral movements. Experimental Brain Research, 131, 236–243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, L. M., & Kantowitz, B. H. (1970). The psychological refractory period effect: Only half the double-stimulation story? Psychological Bulletin, 73, 74–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holender, D. (1980). Interference between a vocal and a manual response to the same stimulus. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 421–431). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66, 260–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L. (2011). The role of saccades in multitasking: Towards an output-related view of eye movements. Psychological Research, 75, 452–465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Crossmodal action: Modality matters. Psychological Research, 75, 445–451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2009). Dual-task crosstalk between saccades and manual responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 352–562.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2010). Crossmodal action selection: Evidence from dual-task compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 38, 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2013). Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 633–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huestegge, L., Pieczykolan, A., & Koch, I. (2014). Talking while looking: On the encapsulation of output system representations. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 72–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janczyk, M. (2016). Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 631–647.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 30–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kveraga, K., Boucher, L., & Hughes, H. C. (2002). Saccades operate in violation of Hick’s law. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 307–314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1260–1280.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.

    Article  PubMed  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 and Performance, 26, 1072–1090.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 484–493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Alderton, M. (2006). Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 149–165.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193–251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pieczykolan, A., & Huestegge, L. (2014). Oculomotor dominance in multitasking: Mechanisms of conflict resolution in cross-modal action. Journal of Vision, 14, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieczykolan, A., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Cross-modal action complexity: Action- and rule-related memory retrieval in dual-response control. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 529.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D. (1966). Time and event uncertainty in unisensory reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 286–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltá, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W. X., & Deubel, H. (2002). Selection-for-perception and selection-for-spatial-motor-action are coupled by visual attention: A review of recent findings and new evidence from stimulus-driven saccade control. Attention and Performance XIX: Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action, 19, 609–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 408–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 376–397.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1791–1802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual- task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 254–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Andrea Zahn, Verena Maag, and Marvin Liesner for the collection of the data and those who participated in the study. The present research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HU 1847/3-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Aleks Pieczykolan & Lynn Huestegge

  2. Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Aleks Pieczykolan & Lynn Huestegge

Authors
  1. Aleks Pieczykolan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynn Huestegge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleks Pieczykolan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pieczykolan, A., Huestegge, L. Sources of interference in cross-modal action: response selection, crosstalk, and general dual-execution costs. Psychological Research 82, 109–120 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0923-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0923-1

Search

Navigation