Talking and driving: applications of crossmodal action reveal a special role for spatial language

Abstract

Talking reduces attention resulting in real-world crash risks to drivers that talk on a phone and drive. Driving is a behavior that is very demanding on spatial attention, suggesting potentially large interference by spatial codes in language. The current study investigated how different types of verbal codes influence visual attention during dual-task performance. In two experiments, participants performed a spatial or non-spatial verbal task while simultaneously performing a visual attention task. The results showed a larger decrement to visual attention performance when participants were concurrently engaged in a spatial verbal task. The results of the second experiment isolated this effect to the right cerebral hemisphere, consistent with a role for shared right parietal resources. These results are consistent with the idea that processing codes are an important component of coordinating talking and driving but generally inconsistent with a broad class of bottleneck approaches that describes dual-task decrements but treats component tasks as cognitively equivalent.

Talking while looking: On the encapsulation of output system representations

“…For example, fixation durations in oral reading are known to be longer than for silent reading (e.g., Rayner, 2009), and talking on the cell phone is known to impair visual orientation during driving (e.g., Atchley & Dressel, 2004;Atchley, Dressel, Jones, Burson, & Marshall, 2011;Strayer, Drews, & Johnston, 2003). Probably, the interference effects shown in our present study (at least partly) contribute to such effects in more complex environments.…”

Crossmodal action: modality matters

“…The study by Atchley et al (2011) adds an applied perspective to the present research topic. They demonstrate that it is particularly difficult to be engaged in a (visuospatial) driving task while at the same time performing a spatial (vs. non-spatial) verbal task.…”

“…It is this breadth of approaches toward a single theme that we hope to capture here. While the emphasis of many studies is on the role of modalities in terms of sensory channels and effector systems, this does in no way imply that other content-related aspects play a subordinate role, for example, effects of specific processing content (see Atchley, Dressel, Jones, Burson, & Marshall, 2011), or of content dimensions (e.g., color vs. shape processing, see the related concept of ''modules'' discussed in Israel & Cohen, 2011).…”

“…These include domain-specific working memory interference (Hazeltine & Wifall, 2011), strategic effects based on task context (Israel & Cohen, 2011), modality-specific processing pathways (Schumacher et al, 2011;Stephan & Koch, 2011), interference based on common (spatial) codes (Atchley et al, 2011) or on shared visual modules (shape, color, word, see Israel & Cohen, 2011), and RSB models (at least for results within the PRP paradigm, see Israel & Cohen, 2011;Stelzel & Schubert, 2011). Further papers additionally discuss the role of cognitive control processes (Wylie et al, 2011), and within-and between-trial crosstalk (Huestegge, 2011).…”

Interference effects of stimulus–response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness

“…(Atchley & Dressel, 2004;Cohen & Feintuch, 2002;Virzi & Egeth, 1985;Wickens, 1980;Wickens et al, 1983; see also Wifall, 2011 andAtchley et al, 2011) Generally, crosstalk relates to informational interactions between two tasks when processing elements from one task set are relevant to the task set of the other task (Logan & Gordon, 2001). Crosstalk between central processing codes occurs, in particular, in situations with high temporal overlap, and should, therefore, increase processing times for central stages in an overadditive fashion at short SOAs.…”