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

Raettig, Tim; Huestegge, Lynn

doi:10.3758/s13414-018-1577-9

Cited by 10 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with previous studies, we observed dual-action benefits in the ERs for the manual modality, but dual-action costs in the RTs for the vocal modality 7 (for an in-depth discussion of possible underlying mechanisms, see Raettig & Huestegge, 2018). However, this partial replication was accompanied by a notable change: We now also observed dual-action benefits in the RTs for the manual modality.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…To this end, we made use of the same basic paradigm implemented by Raettig and Huestegge (2018) with some minor modifications and extended it with an expectancy manipulation by systematically varying the frequency of certain action demands (see below). Participants encountered directional words ("links"/ "left" and "rechts"/"right") as stimuli and reacted by either (a) reading the word aloud (single-vocal response condition), (b) pressing the left or right arrow key on the keyboard according to the meaning of the word (single-manual response condition), or (c) executing both actions at the same time (dual response condition).…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The single-onset paradigm differs from PRP and dual-task contexts in two important respects, though: First, recent studies implementing modified versions of the single-onset paradigm have consistently reported that it is possible to observe dual-action benefits instead of costs—albeit in error rates (ERs), not in RTs (Huestegge & Koch, 2014; Raettig & Huestegge, 2018). Second, it has been previously suggested that when dual actions are triggered by a single stimulus, they are not simply represented as a combination of two single actions but rather as a third kind of (more complex) action in its own right, which is selected via a singular process (conjoint response selection; Fagot & Pashler, 1992).…”

Section: The Hard Work Of Doing Nothingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Representing action in terms of what not to do: Evidence for inhibitory coding during multiple action control.

Raettig

Huestegge

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performing two actions at the same time (vs. in isolation) usually results in performance costs. However, recent studies have reported that it is also possible to observe dual-action benefits, a finding that challenges standard theories of multiple action control. This issue is typically resolved by assuming that under certain circumstances, performing only one of two possible actions-cognitively represented in terms of what to do-necessitates the costly stopping of the initially activated but unwarranted second action. Here, we test this hypothesis against an alternative inhibitory coding account which rests on the assumption that actions might be cognitively represented in terms of what not to do. Across four experiments, participants responded to a single stimulus with either single or dual responses in the manual and vocal domains, while the relative frequency of response types was systematically manipulated. The results revealed robust dual-action benefits in manual response times and error rates, and the pattern across experiments clearly supported the novel inhibitory coding framework. Crucially, this implies that even though the motor actions required for single and dual responses are physically the same, they are represented very differently. Specifically, dual responses can be represented holistically (noncompositionally). Overall, these findings demonstrate an astonishing flexibility in the mental representation of behavior demands. Public Significance StatementConventional wisdom has it that "multitasking" (in a colloquial sense) leads to mistakes and slower performance. Here, we show that under certain circumstances, the opposite is the case-that is, performing multiple actions at the same time can actually be beneficial, leading to more accurate and faster responses. This surprising pattern of results is difficult to explain when adhering to the standard assumption that actions are cognitively represented in terms of what to do, leading us to develop an alternative theory which posits that actions can also be represented in terms of deviations from a default behavior-that is, in terms of what not to do.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Hard Work Of Doing Nothingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Representing action in terms of what not to do: Evidence for inhibitory coding during multiple action control.

Raettig

Huestegge

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This paradigm did not involve a no-go stimulus, but just consisted of intermixed single-and dual-response trials triggered by the same aspect of a single stimulus (thus, this study was different from a typical dual-task setup). These results also highlight the role of automaticity: The more automatic a response is, the harder it is to suppress, eventually leading to greater cognitive costs of inhibition (doing nothing) than of overt execution (see also Raettig & Huestegge, 2016). As in the present study, automaticity was assumed to increase the tendency to translate a stimulus into a response (similar to advance preparedness, based on the fact that a no-go stimulus is presented second or that Task 2 is a simple go/no-go task with only one response alternative).…”

Section: Relation To Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 76%

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

Janczyk

Huestegge

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When two tasks are combined in a dual-task experiment, characteristics of Task 2 can influence Task 1 performance, a phenomenon termed the backward crosstalk effect (BCE). Besides instances depending on the (spatial) compatibility of both responses, a particularly interesting example was introduced by Miller (2006): If Task 2 was a no-go task (i.e., one not requiring any action at all), responses were slowed in Task 1. Subsequent work, however, also reported the opposite result-that is, faster Task 1 responses in cases of no-go Task 2 trials. We report three experiments aiming to more precisely identify the conditions under which a no-go Task 2 facilitates or impedes Task 1 performance. The results suggest that an adverse no-go BCE is only observed when the Task 2 response(s) are sufficiently prepared in advance, yielding strong inhibitory control demands for Task 2 that eventually hamper Task 1 processing as well (i.e., inhibitory costs). If this is not the case, encountering a no-go Task 2 trial facilitates Task 1 performance, suggesting that the underlying task representation is reduced to a single - task. These results are discussed in the context of other recent work on BCEs and of recently suggested accounts of the no-go BCE.

show abstract

“…The present results can also be related to other phenomena. For example, a reduction in dual-task costs in Task 1 was also reported when saccadic eye movements were required in Task 2 as compared with keeping the eye fixated at the screen center (Huestegge & Koch, 2014; see also Raettig & Huestegge, 2018). These studies assumed that a saccadic eye movement toward a peripheral target occurs rather automatically, and thus inhibition is needed to keep the eye fixated at the screen center.…”

Section: Relations To Other Phenomenamentioning

confidence: 91%

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

2019

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

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

Cited by 10 publications

References 31 publications

Representing action in terms of what not to do: Evidence for inhibitory coding during multiple action control.

Representing action in terms of what not to do: Evidence for inhibitory coding during multiple action control.

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About