Determinants of the benefit for consistent stimulus-response mappings in dual-task performance of four-choice tasks

Abstract

Reaction times are shorter when the stimulus-response mappings for pairs of three-choice tasks are consistent (both corresponding or both mirrored ) than when they are inconsistent. The benefit for consistent mirrored mappings is evident at the side positions for each task, for which the responses are crossed, but not at the middle position, for which the response is corresponding. In the present study, we report experiments in which we tested implications of an emergent mapping-choice account of the consistency benefit using pairs of four-choice tasks. This procedure allows crossed responses for all positions when the mapping is mirrored and use of mixed mappings for which one pair of stimuli and responses within a task has a corresponding assignment and the other a crossed assignment. Results showed that when a pure corresponding or pure mirrored mapping was used, there was a consistency benefit for both the middle and side positions. However, when the mixed mapping was introduced, the consistency benefit for that mapping depended on the overall complexity of the set of individual stimulus-response pairings for the combined tasks. A mapping choice between Tasks 1 and 2 is only one of several emergent processes that contribute to response-selection efficiency in dual-task contexts.

Sources of Stimulus-Response Compatibility: Frames, Rules, and Response Tendencies

“…Thus, the hierarchical model predicts that RT for the Inconsistent conditions should be slower than RT for the Consistent Mixed condition which in turn should be slower than RT for the Consistent Corresponding condition which requires no frame selection. Happily, this prediction is supported by Proctor & Vu [14] (Fig. 1).…”

“…Such frame misalignment should cause a decreased RT for error responses ( Table 1). Proctor and Vu [14] (Experiment 1) found that most errors in the inconsistent groupings could be attributed to what we have called misaligned frames. Unfortunately, since they did not report error RT, the speed prediction we generated cannot be evaluated from their publication.…”

“…Proctor and Vu [14]. A very recent study by Proctor and Vu [14] examined the effects of simple rules on S-R compatibility.…”

“…A very recent study by Proctor and Vu [14] examined the effects of simple rules on S-R compatibility. In a corresponding mapping condition, stimuli were mapped to the same location as response keys: stimulus 1 corresponded to key 1, stimulus 2 to key 2, etc.…”

“…In their next experiment Proctor and Vu [14] (Experiment 2) complicated the situation by creating a Mixed condition in which the Outside responses (1 and 4) used a mirrored mapping while the Inside responses (2 and 3) used a corresponding mapping. This mapping cannot be organized by a single rule.…”