Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance.

Abstract

In bottleneck models of overlapping-task performance, stimulus-response translation for secondary tasks is postponed until the primary response is selected. If this is so, then compatibility between the secondary and primary responses, or between the secondary response and the primary stimulus, should not affect primary-task performance. Yet such effects were demonstrated in 5 dual-task experiments combining primary manual and secondary vocal tasks: Pronounced effects of compatibility between the secondary and primary response and between the secondary response and primary stimulus were found on primary-task performance. The latter effect was also found with the lowest level of an extensive stimulus onset asynchrony variation, when the secondary task was not speeded, and even when the 2 tasks were performed on different trials. Findings suggest that secondary responses were activated before primary response selection was completed and thus support an automatic-translation hypothesis holding that, although eventual response selection may be serial, stimulus-response translation is performed in parallel.

Multiple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task switching

“…The result that RT 1 decreased with an increasing SOA could indicate some R 2 -R 1 "backward" compatibility eVect (e.g. Hommel, 1998;Miller & Alderton, 2006). However, since the eVect was mainly restricted to task repetition trials, it seems as if it primarily reXects the usual Xanker congruency eVect (cf.…”

“…In order to explain such eVects, dual-process models have been proposed (e.g. De Jong, Liang, & Lauber, 1994;Hommel, 1998;Kornblum et al, 1990;Ridderinkhof, 2002). According to these models, two processes are usually involved in response selection: One process is intentional and translates the stimulus into a response according to the instructed SR-mapping.…”

In Search of Cross-Talk Facilitation in a Dual-Cued Recall Task.

“…Second task RTs played a negligible role in theoretical conclusions reached by Hommel (1998) and Logan and Schulkind (2000) in their cross-talk designs. To better integrate notation in this experiment with that of Experiment 2, wherein RT is measured for both tasks, Task 1 RT is referred to as RT 1 .…”

“…The latter effect is surprising. Typically in related tasks, such as the Stroop task, interference effects due to the simultaneous presence of an incompatible cue are of much greater magnitude than are facilitation effects in the compatible cues version of the task.These simple effects of SOA within each level of compatibility have not been emphasized in most cross-talk studies to date (Hommel, 1998;Logan & Delheimer, 2001;Logan & Schulkind, 2000). Nevertheless, a greater theoretical understanding of the task is ultimately achieved by considering them directly, and any complete model of the task must explain them.…”

“…These simple effects of SOA within each level of compatibility have not been emphasized in most cross-talk studies to date (Hommel, 1998;Logan & Delheimer, 2001;Logan & Schulkind, 2000). Nevertheless, a greater theoretical understanding of the task is ultimately achieved by considering them directly, and any complete model of the task must explain them.…”