Increased cognitive demands boost the spatial interference effect in bimanual pointing

Abstract

It is beyond controversy that in bimanual coordination tasks, parameter planning related to the movements of one hand influences the planning and execution of movements simultaneously performed with the other hand. A well-researched example of such bimanual interference is the finding that reaction times tend to be longer when preparing bimanual pointing movements with different amplitudes than for equal amplitude movements. Interestingly, these reaction time costs were found to increase when movement targets were cued symbolically (e.g., using letters) as compared to spatially. Therefore, it was suggested that interference may be primarily related to cue translation and response selection processes rather than resulting from cross-talk at the motor programming level. Here, we argue that spatial interference effects do not necessarily depend on the type of cues used but instead depend on the general task demands (difficulty). In two experiments we show that bimanual interference effects can (1) be abolished in symbolic cueing conditions when highly compatible cues placing minimal demands on response selection processes are used and (2) occur in direct/spatial cueing conditions when a secondary cognitively demanding, but movement-unrelated task is performed. Thus, our findings suggest that whether or not interference effects emerge during movement planning depends on the overall task difficulty and hence the resources available during movement preparation.

Individual differences in processing resources modulate bimanual interference in pointing

“…To determine reaction time (RT), we computed the resultant velocity of the positional data obtained from both infrared markers. Movement onset and offset were defined by a velocity threshold (all calculations identical to Stanciu et al, 2017). The moment the markers exceeded a velocity of 0.05 m/s was defined as movement onset and the moment their velocity dropped below 0.05 m/s, and their distance was less than 20 mm from the movement target, was defined as movement offset.…”

“…The setup was identical to the one we have used and described previously (Stanciu et al, 2017). Participants sat in a dimly lit room in front of a monitor (19″ IPS monitor, Dell P1914S, 1280 × 1024 pixel, 30 cm × 37.5 cm, refresh rate 60 Hz) that was flatly screwed onto the table surface in vertical orientation (portrait mode).…”

“…In a recent study, Stanciu, Biehl, and Hesse (2017) hypothesised that there might, after all, be a common cause that determines whether or not an interference effect occurs during bimanual movement preparation. Specifically, they argued that the symbolic cueing condition constitutes a dualtask situation that requires participants to identify the cues and to subsequently link them to the correct motor response, which in turn requires them to keep the specific mapping rules in working memory when doing the task.…”

“…Direct cueing eliminates this cue-response translation process and, therefore, requires overall less cognitive resources than a symbolic cueing task. Hence, Stanciu et al (2017) proposed that the occurrence and the size of the interference effect may depend on the overall task demands and, therefore, the amount of central resources available for movement planning. Support for this notion came from the observation that interference effects were nullified in a symbolic cueing condition when cue-response compatibility was maximised (using arrows as cues).…”

Linguistic Interference in the Context of Teaching Future Translators

“…They study phonological, phonetic, lexical, grammatical, semantic aspects of this phenomenon. Moreover, it was suggested that interference may be primarily related to cue translation and response selection processes rather than resulting from crosstalk [3].…”