When more is less: Adding action effects to reduce crosstalk between concurrently performed tasks

Schacherer, Jonathan; Hazeltine, Eliot

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105318

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the ideomotor theory, the process of action selection is based on the sensory effects of this action, suggesting that there is a bidirectional connection between the action and the action effects (Greenwald, 1970; James, 1890; Prinz, 1997). Several studies provided evidence that the association between action and the action effect is not necessarily hard-wired but can be learned and thus affect task performance (Kühn et al, 2010; Schacherer & Hazeltine, 2021, 2023). For example Kühn and colleagues established images of faces as an artificial action effect of one button press and images of houses for another button press.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multitasking practice eliminates modality-based interference by separating task representations in sensory brain regions

Mueckstein,

Görgen,

Heinzel

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate on the neural basis of multitasking costs evolves around neural overlap between concurrently performed tasks. Recent evidence suggests that training-related reductions in representational overlap in fronto-parietal brain regions predict multitasking improvements. Cognitive theories assume that overlap of task representations may lead to unintended information exchange between tasks (i.e., crosstalk). Modality-based crosstalk was suggested as a source for multitasking costs in multisensory settings. Robust findings of increased costs for certain modality mappings may be explained by crosstalk between the stimulus modality in one task and sensory action consequences in the concurrently performed task. Whether modality-based crosstalk emerges from representational overlap in general fronto-parietal multitasking regions or modality-specific regions is not known yet. In this functional neuroimaging study, we investigate neural overlap in multitasking performance, focusing on modality compatibility by employing multivariate pattern analysis and modality-specific practice interventions in three groups (total N = 54). We observed significant differences between modality compatible and modality incompatible single-task representations, specifically in the auditory cortex but not in fronto-parietal regions. Notably, improved auditory decoding accuracy related to modality incompatible tasks was predictive of performance gains in the corresponding dual task along with complete elimination of modality-specific dual-task costs. This predictive relationship was evident only in the group practicing modality incompatible mappings, suggesting that specific practice on task sets with modality overlap influenced both neural representations and subsequent multitasking performance. This study contributes to the integration of cognitive theory and neuroscience and the role of task representations in dual-task interference.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So far, the modality-based crosstalk assumption has been supported primarily by behavioral research (Göthe et al, 2016; Schacherer & Hazeltine, 2020, 2023). It remains unclear how modality-based crosstalk evolves at the neural level and how this is affected by multitasking practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multitasking practice eliminates modality-based interference by separating task representations in sensory brain regions

Mueckstein,

Görgen,

Heinzel

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The central crosstalk account (e.g., Hazeltine et al, 2006;Schacherer & Hazeltine, 2020, 2023, on the other hand, is inspired by theories holding that all task-relevant features-e.g., stimuli, responses, and action effects-are integrated into the representations engaged by central operations-i.e., the cognitive mechanisms linking perception and action (Frings et al, 2020;Hommel, 2004;Hommel et al, 2001;Prinz, 1990;Schumacher & Hazeltine, 2016). When coordinating tasks that contain similar codes, such as auditory-manual and visual-vocal tasks (both of which contain visuospatial and sound information), the central operations activated by the stimulus (e.g., auditory) in one task interfere with the central operations activated by the response-related action effect (e.g., auditory effects from a vocal response) in the other task, thereby increasing the degree of cross-task interactions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence against stimulus-effect priming as the source of modality pairing effects in task-switching

Schacherer,

Hazeltine

2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Task-switch costs are affected by the pairings of stimulus and response modalities. For example, switch costs are reduced when switching between visual-manual and auditory-vocal tasks compared to switching between visual-vocal and auditory-manual tasks. These modality pairing effects are generally interpreted as reflecting increased crosstalk between the stimuli and response-related action effects for the two tasks. However, the exact mechanism by which this crosstalk operates—stimulus-effect priming or conflict between central operations—is unclear. In four experiments, we manipulated the modality compatibility between stimuli and experimentally-induced action effects, such that tasks overlapped in the stimulus modalities, effect modalities, both, or neither. Experiment 1 conceptually replicated prior reports of modality pairing effects in task-switching in which switch costs were reduced when similar stimulus and effect modalities were encapsulated within tasks. In Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3, symmetrical switch costs across tasks provided evidence against the stimulus-effect priming account, instead suggesting that modality pairing effects stem from interference between the representations engaged by central operations. These results help to characterize the mechanism underlying modality pairing effects in task-switching and add to a growing body of work illustrating how relationships between stimuli and response-related action effects influence response selection processes.

show abstract

“…While such modality linkages come with some flexibility, as altering them may not require much practice (cf. Schacherer & Hazeltine, 2021, 2023; Stephan et al, 2022), it is plausible that encountering stimulation in a certain modality tends to automatically activate the response modality to which it is linked through previous experience (Stephan & Koch, 2011; Wirth et al, 2020). This activation is beneficial if responding in the activated response modality is required, but it may create interference with competing mappings if this modality is currently not appropriate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequential adaptation to modality incompatibility.

Wirth,

Tonn,

Schaaf

et al. 2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modality-compatible stimulus-response mappings (e.g., responding vocally to an auditory stimulus and manually to a visual stimulus) are often easier to perform than modality-incompatible sets (reversed modality mappings). Here, we investigate sequential, trial-to-trial, modulations of modality compatibility effects. By reanalyzing a previous experiment and conducting two specifically tailored, new experiments, we demonstrate robust within-task sequential modulations. Furthermore, we test for between-task adaptations by intermixing the modality switching task with a Simon task. Results show reliable sequential adaptations within the modality switching task, but no transfer of adaptation between tasks in either direction. We discuss how a combination of prominent theoretical accounts such as conflict adaptation and episodic binding can serve as the cognitive underpinnings of the observed sequential adaptations. Public Significance StatementHuman agents appear to be more apt to respond to certain modalities of stimulation like vision (or audition) with certain types of responses, like manual (or vocal) responses. This so-called modality compatibility effect presumably results from long-term learning, which links certain stimulus modalities to certain response modalities. Here, we show that performance deficits with modality incompatible mappings are subject to short-term fluctuations as a function of immediately preceding experience. Thus, apparently highly overlearned preferences of responding in certain ways to certain types of stimulation can become adjusted on a short timescale, suggesting a remarkable flexibility of the sensorimotor system.

show abstract

When more is less: Adding action effects to reduce crosstalk between concurrently performed tasks

Cited by 4 publications

References 66 publications

Multitasking practice eliminates modality-based interference by separating task representations in sensory brain regions

Multitasking practice eliminates modality-based interference by separating task representations in sensory brain regions

Evidence against stimulus-effect priming as the source of modality pairing effects in task-switching

Sequential adaptation to modality incompatibility.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About