When two actions are easier than one: How inhibitory control demands affect response processing

Huestegge, Lynn; Koch, Iring

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.001

Cited by 20 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is because the data pattern shows fewer errors in dual-response trials than in single-response trials -which indicates a dual-response advantage rather than a dualresponse cost. This finding corresponds Huestegge and Koch (2014), who observed a comparable dual-response advantage in error rates (but not in RT as in the present study) in a non-language context. Huestegge and Koch 3 Please note that the RT for manual responses represents the release of the homekey, which is faster than the onset of the actual sign.…”

Section: Dual-response Costssupporting

confidence: 93%

Language-switch costs and dual-response costs in bimodal bilingual language production

Kaufmann

Philipp

2015

Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In communication, different forms of language combinations are possible for bimodal bilinguals, who use a spoken and a signed language. They can either switch from one language to another (language switching) or produce a word and a sign simultaneously (language blending). The present study examines language control mechanisms in language switching and simultaneous bimodal language production, comparing single-response (German or German Sign Language) and dual-response trials (Blend of the German word and the German Sign Language sign). There were three pure blocks, one for each Target-response (German, German Sign Language, Blend), as well as mixed blocks, in which participants switched between all three Target-responses. We observed language mixing costs, switch costs and dual-response costs. Further, the data pattern showed a specific dual-response advantage for switching into a Blend (i.e., a dual-response trial), indicating the specific nature of a blended response in bimodal bilingual language production.

show abstract

Section: Dual-response Costssupporting

confidence: 93%

Language-switch costs and dual-response costs in bimodal bilingual language production

Kaufmann

Philipp

2015

Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The adverse no-go BCE resembles results from a study by Huestegge and Koch (2014), which showed worse performance (there in terms of error rates, not RTs) in singleresponse versus dual-response conditions when the singleresponse condition (a keypress) involved the concurrent inhibition of a relatively automatic saccade. 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).…”

Section: Relation To Other Studiessupporting

confidence: 70%

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: 92%

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

When two actions are easier than one: How inhibitory control demands affect response processing

Cited by 20 publications

References 37 publications

Language-switch costs and dual-response costs in bimodal bilingual language production

Language-switch costs and dual-response costs in bimodal bilingual language production

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