Effects of a no-go Task 2 on Task 1 performance in dual - tasking: From benefits to costs

Janczyk, Markus; Huestegge, Lynn

doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1257-6

Cited by 18 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(75 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, RT2s for frequent responses were shorter than those for less frequent responses, supporting the idea that participants indeed prepared for the more likely response alternative. Second, in neutral blocks, RT1 was shorter when Task 2 was a no-go trial, replicating results reported by Janczyk and Huestegge (2017). Most important, this pattern was reversed in biased blocks, thus the no-go BCE reemerged when preparation of a Task 2 response was encouraged.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Motivated by the different suggestions advanced in the previous literature Janczyk & Huestegge, 2017;Miller, 2006;Röttger & Haider, 2017), the present study provides a direct test that preparation of a Task 2 response and its inhibition in no-go trials is the reason for performance decrements in Task 1, when Task 2 is a no-go task-a phenomenon known as the no-go BCE. More generally, the present results support the view that reduced preparation for Task 2 can reduce performance decrements in Task 1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The most often invoked explanation for the no-go BCE is that inhibition is required to withhold an already prepared Task 2 response in no-go trials, whereby some inhibition spills over to Task 1 and thus prolongs RT1s in no-go trials (Janczyk & Huestegge, 2017;Miller, 2006). In addition, recent results from a mental chronometry study also suggest that indeed motor execution in Task 1 is prolonged in Task 2 no-go trials, thus lending additional support for the preparation hypothesis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

See 2 more Smart Citations

To prepare or not to prepare? When preparation of a response in Task 2 induces extra performance costs in Task 1

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In dual tasking, the no-go backward crosstalk effect (BCE) means that processing of Task 1 takes longer when Task 2 does not require a response (no-go trial) than when it requires a response (go trial). Thus, contrary to the usual observation, giving two successive responses counterintuitively reduces instead of increases performance costs for Task 1. Results from recent studies are in line with the notion that the no-go BCE reflects response inhibition, which is required to overcome an already prepared go response in Task 2, but which also spills over to motor execution in Task 1. No direct test of this hypothesis, however, has been carried out so far, and hence the present study was designed to fill this gap. The result of this study with n = 48 participants revealed that a no-go Task 2 impeded Task 1 performance when preparation of the Task 2 response was encouraged, but facilitated Task 1 performance when preparation of the Task 2 response was not encouraged.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To prepare or not to prepare? When preparation of a response in Task 2 induces extra performance costs in Task 1

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Closer relatives to our own design are dual-task studies (with two distinct stimuli for each task) involving a go/nogo task as Task 2. For example, Miller (2006) showed that trials involving a no-go stimulus (vs. a go stimulus) in Task 2 were characterized by a Task 1 RT increase (see also Janczyk & Huestegge, 2017;Miller & Durst, 2014, 2015. It was assumed that this effect is based on an inhibitory response triggered by the no-go stimulus, which (either directly or via its transformation into a dedicated Binhibitory response^selection process) eventually prolongs Task 1 processing (see Röttger & Haider, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The hard work of doing nothing: Accounting for inhibitory costs during multiple action control

Raettig

Huestegge

2018

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performing many actions at the same time is usually associated with performance costs. However, recent eye-tracking evidence indicates that under specific conditions, inhibiting a secondary response can be more costly than executing it, resulting in dual-action benefits. Here, we show that performance gains due to the absence of inhibitory control demands in dual-action trials are not limited to saccades as a response modality. In our study, participants had to react to a visually presented directional word by either reading the stimulus aloud (vocal modality), pressing the corresponding arrow key on a keyboard (manual modality), or both. Crucially, manual error rates were significantly lower when participants had to respond with both a button press and naming than when they had to respond with naming only. More specifically, in vocal-only conditions we observed a significant percentage of false-positive manual responses, suggesting difficulties with inhibiting an unwarranted manual action. Thus, our results indicate that difficulties associated with single- (vs. dual-) action control are a stable, domain-general phenomenon that likely arises whenever execution-related demands are accompanied by substantial additional inhibitory control demands.

show abstract

“…Miller (2006), for example, used a go/no-go task for Task 2. When Task 2 was a no-go trial, RT1s were longer compared to when Task 2 required a go trial, which is often referred to as the no-go BCE (see also Janczyk & Huestegge, 2017;Ko & Miller, 2014;Röttger & Haider, 2017). Although similar to the compatibility-based BCE at a phenomenological level, recent evidence by Janczyk (2018, 2019) suggests that the no-go BCE arises due to Task 2 response selection influencing the motor execution of Task 1 (but see Röttger & Haider, 2017, for a different opinion).…”

Section: Limitations Implications and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

S1-R2 and R1-R2 Backward Crosstalk Both Affect the Central Processing Stage

Koob

Durst²,

Bratzke

et al. 2020

Journal of Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A frequent observation in dual-task experiments is that performance in Task 1 is influenced by conceptual or spatial overlap with features of Task 2. Such compatibility-based backward crosstalk effects (BCEs) can occur when overlap exists between the responses of two tasks-the R1-R2 BCE-or between the stimulus in Task 1 and the response in Task 2-the S1-R2 BCE. The present study investigated whether the S1-R2 BCE has a perceptual locus, and by implication, whether the two BCEs have a common processing locus or different ones. To this end, we applied the additive factors logic and manipulated the duration of the Task 1 perceptual stage. The results argue against a perceptual locus for both BCEs. As a possible explanation, we suggest that the R1-R2 BCE and the S1-R2 BCE have their locus within a capacity-limited central stage, but that they arise from different processes within this stage. The R1-R2 BCE influences Task 1 response selection, whereas the S1-R2 BCE influences Task 1 stimulus classification. A plausible though post-hoc model is presented within the Discussion.

show abstract

Effects of a no-go Task 2 on Task 1 performance in dual - tasking: From benefits to costs

Cited by 18 publications

References 28 publications

To prepare or not to prepare? When preparation of a response in Task 2 induces extra performance costs in Task 1

To prepare or not to prepare? When preparation of a response in Task 2 induces extra performance costs in Task 1

The hard work of doing nothing: Accounting for inhibitory costs during multiple action control

S1-R2 and R1-R2 Backward Crosstalk Both Affect the Central Processing Stage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About