Two experiments examined the role of compatibility of input and output (I-O) modality mappings in task switching. We define I-O modality compatibility in terms of similarity of stimulus modality and modality of response-related sensory consequences. Experiment 1 included switching between 2 compatible tasks (auditory-vocal vs. visual-manual) and between 2 incompatible tasks (auditory-manual vs. visual-vocal). The resulting switch costs were smaller in compatible tasks compared to incompatible tasks. Experiment 2 manipulated the response-stimulus interval (RSI) to examine the time course of the compatibility effect. The effect on switch costs was confirmed with short RSI, but the effect was diminished with long RSI. Together, the data suggest that task sets are modality specific. Reduced switch costs in compatible tasks may be due to special linkages between input and output modalities, whereas incompatible tasks increase cross-talk, presumably due to dissipating interference of correct and incorrect response modalities.

Input-output (I-O) modality compatibility refers to the similarity of stimulus modality and modality of response-related sensory consequences. A previous study found higher switch costs in task switching in I-O modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal) than in I-O modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual). However, these tasks had spatially compatible S-R mappings, which implied dimensional overlap (DO). DO may have led to automatic activation of the corresponding compatible responses in the incorrect response modality, thus increasing interference effects. The present study was aimed to examine the influence of DO on I-O modality compatibility effects. In two experiments, we found that I-O modality compatibility affects task switching even in tasks without DO, which even tended to result in further increased modality influences. This finding suggests that I-O modality mappings affect response selection by affecting between-task cross-talk not on the level of specific response codes but on the level of modality-specific processing pathways.

In the current study, we set out to investigate language control, which is the process that minimizes cross-language interference, during bilingual language comprehension. According to current theories of bilingual language comprehension, language-switch costs, which are a marker for reactive language control, should be observed. However, a closer look at the literature shows that this is not always the case. Furthermore, little to no evidence for language-mixing costs, which are a marker for proactive language control, has been observed in the bilingual language comprehension literature. This is in line with current theories of bilingual language comprehension, as they do not explicitly account for proactive language control. In the current study, we further investigated these two markers of language control and found no evidence for comprehension-based language-switch costs in six experiments, even though other types of switch costs were observed with the exact same setup (i.e., task-switch costs, stimulus modality-switch costs, and production-based language-switch costs). Furthermore, only one out of three experiments showed comprehension-based language-mixing costs, providing the first tentative evidence for proactive language control during bilingual language comprehension. The implications of the absence and occurrence of these costs are discussed in terms of processing speed and parallel language activation.

No abstract

The present study was aimed at examining modality-specific influences in task switching. To this end, participants switched either between modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) or incompatible spatial discrimination tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal). In addition, auditory and visual stimuli were presented simultaneously (i.e., bimodally) in each trial, so that selective attention was required to process the task-relevant stimulus. The inclusion of bimodal stimuli enabled us to assess congruence effects as a converging measure of increased between-task interference. The tasks followed a pre-instructed sequence of double alternations (AABB), so that no explicit task cues were required. The results show that switching between two modality incompatible tasks increases both switch costs and congruence effects compared to switching between two modality compatible tasks. The finding of increased congruence effects in modality incompatible tasks supports our explanation in terms of ideomotor "backward" linkages between anticipated response effects and the stimuli that called for this response in the first place. According to this generalized ideomotor idea, the modality match between response effects and stimuli would prime selection of a response in the compatible modality. This priming would cause increased difficulties to ignore the competing stimulus and hence increases the congruence effect. Moreover, performance would be hindered when switching between modality incompatible tasks and facilitated when switching between modality compatible tasks.