Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm

Bottleneck models of psychological refractory period (PRP) tasks suggest that a Task 1 response should be unaffected by the Task 2 response in the same trial, because selection of the former finishes before selection of the latter begins. Contrary to this conception, the authors found backward response-level crosstalk effects in which Task 2 response force requirements influenced the force-time dynamics of Task 1 responses. Specifically, Task 2 required a hard or soft keypress response. Task 1 responses were harder when the upcoming Task 2 response was to press hard rather than soft, suggesting some activation of Task 2 response parameters before Task 1 processing reached the final ballistic motor output stage. A 3rd experiment using a flankers paradigm showed that this effect did not arise from automatic activation of responses by the stimuli associated with hard and soft responses. This backward response-level crosstalk extends previous findings of backward crosstalk in the PRP paradigm by showing that crosstalk can affect motor output as well as response time and can arise even when the 2 tasks being performed are not semantically related.     

Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection

The purpose of this paper was to provide insight into the nature of response selection by reviewing the literature on stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects and the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect individually and jointly. The empirical findings and theoretical explanations of SRC effects that have been studied within a single-task context suggest that there are two response-selection routes—automatic activation and intentional translation. In contrast, all major PRP models reviewed in this paper have treated response selection as a single processing stage. In particular, the response-selection bottleneck (RSB) model assumes that the processing of Task 1 and Task 2 comprises two separate streams and that the PRP effect is due to a bottleneck located at response selection. Yet, considerable evidence from studies of SRC in the PRP paradigm shows that the processing of the two tasks is more interactive than is suggested by the RSB model and by most other models of the PRP effect. The major implication drawn from the studies of SRC effects in the PRP context is that response activation is a distinct process from final response selection. Response activation is based on both long-term and short-term task-defined S-R associations and occurs automatically and in parallel for the two tasks. The final response selection is an intentional act required even for highly compatible and practiced tasks and is restricted to processing one task at a time. Investigations of SRC effects and responseselection variables in dual-task contexts should be conducted more systematically because they provide significant insight into the nature of response-selection mechanisms.     

The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting

Response selection in task shifting was explored using a go/no-go methodology. The no-go signal occurred unpredictably with stimulus onset so that all trials required task preparation but only go trials required response selection. Experiment 1 showed that shift costs were absent after no-go trials, indicating that response processes are crucial for shift costs. In Experiment 2, backward inhibition was absent after no-go trials. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that response selection, rather than execution, causes backward inhibition. All 4 experiments showed effects of preparation time in go trials, suggesting that advance preparation must have also occurred in no-go trials. The authors concluded that inhibition of irrelevant task sets arises only at response selection and that residual shift costs reflect such persisting inhibition.     

Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: distinct attentional mechanisms.

Does shifting visual attention require the same central mechanism as that required for selecting overt motor responses? In Experiment 1, Ss performed 2 tasks: a speeded manual response to a tone and an unspeeded report of a cued target letter in a brief masked array. Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between tone and array was varied. If the attention shift to the target was delayed by the first task, then there should be more second-task errors at short SOAs and on trials with slow first-task responses. In fact, SOA effects and dependencies were minimal. Results were unchanged in further experiments in which the relation between cue and target was symbolic, spatially "unnatural," or based on the color of the target. Two additional experiments validated key assumptions of the method. The results confirm that although selection of motor responses constitutes a processing bottleneck, the control of visual attention operates independently of this bottleneck.     

Information continuity across the response selection bottleneck: Early parallel Task 2 response activation contributes to overt Task 2 performance

Several studies of dual-task performance have demonstrated Task 2 to Task 1 response priming (backward compatibility effects), indicating some degree of parallel response computation for concurrent tasks and suggesting that the well-established response selection bottleneck (RSB) model may be incomplete. However, the RSB might be considered to remain informationally intact if this early parallel Task 2 response information does not persist across the attentional shift between tasks to contribute to overt Task 2 performance. We used an adapted psychological refractory period paradigm with an additional early transient Task 2 stimulus to examine whether response information generated for Task 2 in parallel with overt Task 1 response selection could persist across the bottleneck to influence eventual overt Task 2 performance. After controlling for potential indirect effects of Task 1 processing stage variability propagating onto Task 2 reaction time via locus of slack effects, we observed reliable and consistent effects of early Task 2 response information facilitating Task 2 reaction times. These effects were observed only when the responses to both tasks of the dual-task pair were compatible, under both univalent and bivalent response mappings across tasks. These findings may represent evidence of a variably sensitive response gating or suppression mechanism in dual-task performance and support the idea that backward response compatibility effects represent transient informational influences on central response codes, rather than later postbottleneck response execution processes.     

注意力资源限制与双任务的相互干扰机制

采用心理不应期研究范式, 两个反应时实验检测了注意力资源分配的特征以及双任务的相互干扰机制。每次实验中, 要求被试快速、相继对高低音辨别任务(T1)和Stroop任务(T2)作出选择性反应, T1和T2间采用6种不同的时间间隔(SOA), 以系统考察不同SOA条件下两个任务的反应时走势。结果发现：(1) 在重叠的双任务情境中, T1的中枢加工导致在T2上出现显著的PRP效应, T2的中枢反应选择对T1的反应选择和反应执行加工同样产生显著的影响。SOA以及T2的难度与复杂度实质性地影响了T1的反应选择和反应执行加工。(2) 当两个任务同时需要进行中枢反应选择加工时, 一个任务占用更多的注意资源将导致另一任务获得较少的注意资源, 注意资源量的多寡直接决定了该任务的加工效率。(3) 两个任务的加工相互影响、相互制约, 这种制约机制不仅仅存在于中枢反应选择阶段, 在反应执行阶段仍然存在。     

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

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.     

Transfer of response codes from choice-response to go/no-go tasks

The present study investigated the conditions for observing the Simon effect in go/no-go tasks. The Simon effect denotes faster and more accurate responses when irrelevant stimulus location and response location correspond than when they do not correspond. In four experiments, participants performed both in a choice-response task (CRT) and in a go/no-go task, and we varied the order and the similarity of the tasks. In the CRT, participants pressed a left key to one stimulus colour and a right key to another stimulus colour; in the go/no-go task, participants pressed one (e.g., left) key to one stimulus colour and refrained from responding to the other stimulus colour. As expected, Simon effects were consistently observed in the CRT. In contrast, Simon effects in the go/no-go task were only observed when it followed the CRT and when the mapping of stimulus colours to response locations was preserved between tasks (i.e., in Experiment 4). Results suggest that transfer of a particular S–R rule including response location from the CRT to the go/no-go task was responsible for the Simon effect in the latter task. In general, results are consistent with a response-discrimination account of the Simon effect.     

Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference

Previous studies have paired a visual-manual Task 1 with an auditory-vocal Task 2 to evaluate whether the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect is eliminated with two ideomotor-compatible tasks (for which stimuli resemble the response feedback). The present study varied the number of stimulus-response alternatives for Task 1 in three experiments to determine whether set-size and PRP effects were absent, as would be expected if the tasks bypass limited-capacity response-selection processes. In Experiments 1 and 2, the visual-manual task was used as Task 1, with lever-movement and keypress responses, respectively. In Experiment 3, the auditory-vocal task was used as Task 1 and the visual-manual task as Task 2. A significant lengthening of reaction time for 4 vs. 2 alternatives was found for the visual-manual Task 1 and the Task 2 PRP effect in Experiments 1 and 2, suggesting that the visual-manual task is not ideomotor compatible. Neither effect of set size was significant for the auditory-vocal Task 1 in Experiment 3, but there was still a Task 2 PRP effect. Our results imply that neither version of the visual-manual task is ideomotor compatible; other considerations suggest that the auditory-vocal task may also still require response selection.     

Late backward effects in the refractory period paradigm: effects of Task 2 execution on Task 1 performance

The central bottleneck model assumes that in the psychological refractory paradigm, Task 1 performance is independent of Task 2 demands. Previous studies, however, have reported backward crosstalk effects of motor demands in Task 2 on Task 1 performance. These effects have been attributed to interference at the central level. The present study aimed to isolate more directly potential backward effects at the motor level. Therefore, in three experiments, movement distance in Task 2 was manipulated using a guided ballistic movement. The results showed that movement distance in Task 2 affected reaction time as well as response duration in Task 1. It is argued that the backward effect observed in this study is due to response coupling at motor rather than central levels.     

The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition

The functional significance of the N2 in go/no-go tasks was investigated by comparing electrophysiological data obtained from two tasks: a go/no-go task involving both response inhibition as well as response conflict monitoring, and a go/GO task associated with conflict monitoring only. No response was required to no-go stimuli, and a response with maximal force to GO stimuli. The relative frequency of the go stimuli (80% vs. 50%) was varied. The N2 peaked on both no-go and GO trials, with larger amplitudes for both signals when presented in a context of frequent (80%) go signals. These results support the idea that the N2 reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition.     

Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexical decision task?

In the go/no-go lexical decision task (LDT), participants are instructed to respond as quickly as they can when a word is presented and not to respond if a nonword is presented. By minimizing part of the response selection process in the experimental task, the impact of response decision time on the obtained lexical decision time is probably reduced relative to the standard yes/no LDT (Gordon, 1983). Experiments 1 and 2 show that the go/no-go LDT is sensitive to the effects of word frequency and associative priming--the magnitude of these effects is similar with the two tasks. More important, the go/no-go LDT has a number of advantages with respect to the "standard" yes/no LDT: It offers faster response times, more accurate responding, and fewer processing demands than does the yes/no task. Accordingly, the go/no-go task appears to be an excellent alternative to the standard yes/no task.     

Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?

Can people learn to perform two tasks at the same time without interference? To answer this question, the authors trained 6 participants for 36 sessions in a Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) experiment, where Task 1 required a speeded vocal response to an auditory stimulus and Task 2 required a speeded manual response to a visual stimulus. The large PRP effect found initially (353 ms in Session 1) shrank to only about 40 ms over the course of practice, disappearing entirely for 1 of the 6 participants. This reduction in the PRP effect with practice is considerably larger than has been previously reported. The obtained pattern of factor interactions between stimulus onset asynchrony and each of three task difficulty manipulations (Task 1 judgment difficulty, Task 2 stimulus contrast, and Task 2 mapping compatibility) supports a postponement (bottleneck) account of dual-task interference, both before and after practice.     

Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-stress instructions?

It has been argued that the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect is eliminated with two ideomotor compatible tasks when instructions stress fast and simultaneous responding. Three experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. In all experiments, Task 1 required spatially compatible manual responses (left or right) to the direction of an arrow, and Task 2 required saying the name of the auditory letter A or B. In Experiments 1 and 3, the manual responses were keypresses made with the left and right hands, whereas in Experiment 2 they were left-right toggle-switch movements made with the dominant hand. Instructions that stressed response speed reduced reaction time and increased error rate compared to standard instructions to respond fast and accurately, but did not eliminate the PRP effect on Task 2 reaction time. These results imply that, even when response speed is emphasized, ideomotor compatible tasks do not bypass response selection.     

An electrophysiological study of the insertion of overt response choice

Using electrophysiological measures, the authors studied changes in prestimulus state, stimulus identification, and response-related processing when, in a go/no-go task, forced choice between 2 overt go responses was inserted. The authors observed decreased prestimulus motor preparation (electromyogram), no change in stimulus identification time (selection negativity), a minor increase in response selection time (lateralized readiness potential), a large increase in response preparation time (lateralized readiness potential), a minor effect on response execution time (electromyogram), and a decrease in the activation of a response-inhibition process on no-go trials (frontal event-related potential). The existence of the response-inhibition process was verified by the presence of inverted lateralized readiness potentials on no-go trials. Pure insertion of response choice in a task seems impossible because the choice between activation and inhibition (go/no-go) always seems already present.     

Parallel response selection in dual-task situations via automatic category-to-response translation

In contrast to the response selection bottleneck theory of dual-task performance, recent studies have demonstrated compatibility effects between secondary and primary responses on Task 1, suggesting that response information for two tasks may be generated in parallel. In two experiments, we examined the nature of Task 2 response activation in parallel with Task 1, using a psychological refractory period paradigm. Evidence of Task 2 to Task 1 response priming when each Task 2 stimulus was unique indicated that automatic parallel generation of response information occurred for Task 2 via abstract semantic category-to-response translation processes, independent of any direct stimulus-response influences. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the traditional response selection bottleneck theory of dual-task performance.     

No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation

It has recently been shown that the cost associated with switching tasks is eliminated following ‘no-go’ trials, in which response selection is not completed, suggesting that the switch cost depends on response selection. However, no-go trials may also affect switch costs by interfering with the effects of task preparation that precede response selection. To test this hypothesis we evaluated switch costs following standard go trials with those following two types of non-response trials: no-go trials, for which a stimulus is presented that indicates no response should be made (Experiment 1); and cue-only trials in which no stimulus is presented following the task cue (Experiment 2). We hypothesized that eliminating no-go stimuli would reveal effects of task preparation on the switch cost in cue-only trials. We found no switch cost following no-go trials (Experiment 1), but a reliable switch cost in cue-only trials (i.e., when no-go stimuli were removed; Experiment 2). We conclude that no-go trials can modulate the switch cost, independent of their effect on response selection, by interfering with task preparation, and that the effects of task preparation on switch cost are more directly assessed by cue-only trials.     

双任务情境下心理旋转的并行加工机制

采用心理不应期研究范式,三个反应时实验检测了心理旋转任务和其他认知操作任务能否并行加工的问题。在每个实验中要求被试快速、系列地完成对高低音的辨别任务(T1)和不同旋转角度的正反像辨别任务(T2),T1和T2呈现的时间间隔运用变化的SOA。结果发现：(1)T1的反应选择对T2的反应选择产生了很大的影响,在T2上PRP效应显著。心理旋转的操作成绩随着SOA的缩短而降低。(2)在T1上同样存在随着SOA缩短,反应时增加,正确率下降的趋势。T2的反应选择对T1的反应选择同样产生了显著的影响。(3)T2的反应选择对T1的中枢加工产生了相应的影响,表明当T1的反应选择占据中枢瓶颈时,心理旋转任务和其他认知操作任务在中枢瓶颈中并行得到了有效的加工     

Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck

This article examines the attentional limits responsible for task slowing in the overlapping task (refractory period) paradigm. Five experiments are reported in which stimulus factors were manipulated in visual search tasks performed in isolation or temporally overlapping with another task. Bottleneck models suggest that second-task slowing is caused by postponement of "attention-demanding" stages of the second task, while earlier "automatic" stages proceed unhindered. A prediction was derived from this class of models, namely that in the overlapping task condition the effect of second task factors that slow automatic stages should be reduced, whereas the effect of factors slowing later nonautomatic stages should be unchanged. The data (Experiments 1-4) exhibit such a pattern and suggest that encoding and comparison stages of the second task, but not response selection, occur in parallel with work on the first task. The absence of overadditive interactions in these experiments, and also the effects of manipulating first-task factors in Experiment 5, seems to argue against capacity sharing as the source of the slowing in this task combination. Some implications of these results for attention theory are discussed.     

More conservative go/no-go response criterion under high working memory load

Previous work has shown that the efficiency of selective attention depends on the availability of cognitive control functions, including working memory. Here we examined the role of working memory in another task involving executive control, namely, a go/no-go task. Participants performed the Sustained Attention to Response Task, which requires withholding a prepotent response to an infrequent target, when at the same time placing a low or high load on an unrelated working memory task. Working memory load had the effect of reducing accuracy on the go trials, when at the same time increasing accuracy on the no-go trials. We interpret these findings to suggest that high working memory load led to a shift to a more conservative response criterion.