The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching

Abstract

Input-output (I-O) modality compatibility refers to the similarity of stimulus modality and modality of response-related sensory consequences. A previous study found higher switch costs in task switching in I-O modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal) than in I-O modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual). However, these tasks had spatially compatible S-R mappings, which implied dimensional overlap (DO). DO may have led to automatic activation of the corresponding compatible responses in the incorrect response modality, thus increasing interference effects. The present study was aimed to examine the influence of DO on I-O modality compatibility effects. In two experiments, we found that I-O modality compatibility affects task switching even in tasks without DO, which even tended to result in further increased modality influences. This finding suggests that I-O modality mappings affect response selection by affecting between-task cross-talk not on the level of specific response codes but on the level of modality-specific processing pathways.

Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance

“…In addition to this modular effect, there is also evidence that same/different modality also affects performance (e.g., . As several papers in this volume demonstrate (Schumacher et al 2011;Stephan and Koch, 2011) that there is a clear modality effect on dual task performance at different levels of analysis. Although not at the focus of the present study, the specific relation between modality and modularity is interesting but not well explored.…”

Talking while looking: On the encapsulation of output system representations

“…Fodor (1983) proposed that modules should exhibit domain specificity in that they may only operate on a specific kind of input. In Experiment 1, we explicitly studied the role of stimulus modality under dimensionally overlapping response requirements by testing hypotheses derived from previous research and theory on input-output modality compatibility (e.g., Hazeltine & Wifall, 2011;Hazeltine et al 2006;Stelzel & Schubert, 2011;Stephan & Koch, 2010;Stephan & Koch, 2011). Since stimuli and responses were spatially compatible throughout, one could assume that this represents an optimal condition for interference-free performance (within the limits of dimensionally overlapping response requirements).…”

“…In fact, previous research as well as research from our own lab suggests that special cases like a) visual orientation responses of the eyes toward suddenly appearing, salient stimuli in the periphery (Bekkering et al, 1994;Pashler et al, 1993) or b) eye movements in the context of reaching and grasping (e.g., Lünenburger et al, 2000) may occur without costs under additional manual action demands. However, we feel that a truly encapsulated system should exhibit a more general immunity to interference, at least within the limits of a certain trigger dimension (e.g., visual stimuli; see Fodor, 1983; see also theoretical explanations of the IOMC effect, e.g., Stephan & Koch, 2011). For example, one would not call motor control of leg movements encapsulated just because there may be instances of leg responses that can be elicited without any interference (e.g., the special case of patellar reflexes).…”

Age-Related Interference between the Selection of Input-Output Modality Mappings and Postural Control—a Pilot Study

“…The latter tasks might require controlled translation from the stimulus information to the response to a higher degree (Kornblum et al, 1990), similar to overcoming prepotent response tendencies in the Stroop task. Empirical evidence for these additional processing demands stem from studies using temporally overlapping dual-task designs (Hazeltine et al, 2006; Stelzel et al, 2006; Stelzel and Schubert, 2011) and sequential task-switching designs (Stephan and Koch, 2010, 2011), combining either two modality compatible or two modality incompatible tasks. In the both contexts, averaging across the two component tasks eliminates effects of input- and output modality, pinpointing differences to interference of central translation processes and their coordination.…”