Embodied cognition in multitasking: increased hand-specific task shielding when stimuli are presented near the hand

Opposing influences of global and local stimulus-hand proximity on crosstalk interference in dual tasks

“…Noteworthy, however, in contrast to this viewpoint, we did not observe a modulation of the amount of crosstalk by global stimulus-hand proximity in Experiment 3. This result is surprising, as Experiment 1 and previous studies (Fischer & Liepelt, 2020) have demonstrated a reliable reduction of the BCE in a global-proximal compared with a local-distal condition. One potential reason for the divergence of this experiment's results from previous studies might be small differences regarding the experimental procedure that were required to integrate global and local proximity manipulations within a single experimental setup.…”

“…In fact, there is some evidence indicating that the orientation and position of the hand's functional surface can affect the quality of visual processing of nearby stimuli (Davoli & Brockmole, 2012;Reed et al, 2010), analogously to how subtle changes in grasp posture (Thomas, 2015), anatomical location (Tseng & Bridgeman, 2011), or handedness (Le Bigot & Grosjean, 2012) can modulate the outcome of stimulus-hand proximity experiments. In addition, the tilted monitor setup in Experiment 2 differs from Experiment 1 and previous studies (Fischer & Liepelt, 2020) using a standard CRT monitor. This may have also affected participants' body posture, thus potentially contributing to the global hand proximity effect.…”

Valence moderates the effect of stimulus-hand proximity on conflict processing and gaze-cueing

“…Further empirical observations suggest increased cognitive control during stimulus processing near the hands reflected in diminished interference effects in a non-spatial Stroop test ( Davoli et al, 2010 ), reduced task-switching costs for stimuli that appeared near the hands ( Weidler & Abrams, 2014 ), and reduced dual-task crosstalk ( Fischer & Liepelt, 2020 ). The reduced interference effects for the stimulus-proximate hand position suggest that stimuli near the hands receive increased levels of cognitive control in cognitively demanding tasks ( Weidler & Abrams, 2014 ; Liepelt & Fischer, 2016 ; Fischer & Liepelt, 2020 ). For instance, a hand near condition reduces the amount of between task interference ( i.e ., crosstalk) as compared to a hands far condition in a dual-task paradigm ( Fischer & Liepelt, 2020 ).…”

“…The reduced interference effects for the stimulus-proximate hand position suggest that stimuli near the hands receive increased levels of cognitive control in cognitively demanding tasks ( Weidler & Abrams, 2014 ; Liepelt & Fischer, 2016 ; Fischer & Liepelt, 2020 ). For instance, a hand near condition reduces the amount of between task interference ( i.e ., crosstalk) as compared to a hands far condition in a dual-task paradigm ( Fischer & Liepelt, 2020 ). This finding provides evidence for the optimization of task shielding, a cognitive control process that supports the separation of two simultaneously processed tasks by protecting the processing of a prioritized task from the interference of a concurrently running secondary task.…”

“…This finding provides evidence for the optimization of task shielding, a cognitive control process that supports the separation of two simultaneously processed tasks by protecting the processing of a prioritized task from the interference of a concurrently running secondary task. In addition to the typical impact of attention on the visual field near the reaction site, there is also evidence for an effect of task expectations, i.e ., a top-down influence ( Fischer & Liepelt, 2020 ). The influence of both, bottom-up, like allocation of attention, ( Reed, Grubb & Steele, 2006 ) and top-down information ( Fischer & Liepelt, 2020 ) demonstrate the complexity of differential processing of stimuli presented near the hands.…”