Processing of irrelevant location information under dual-task conditions

This study deals with the problem of whether the processing of irrelevant location information in Simon-like tasks is triggered exogenously or endogenously. In Experiment 1, the primary task required one to press, as fast as possible, a left-hand-side key or a right-hand-side key (R1) to the pitch of a tone that was presented binaurally (S1). The secondary task required identifying, without time constraints, a visual stimulus (S2) that appeared randomly to the left or right of screen center. Results showed that there was a correspondence (i.e., a cross-task Simon effect) between the location of R1 and the location of S2 when S2 was presented alone. The cross-task Simon effect became much smaller (and in-significant) when a noise stimulus was presented contralateral to S2. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1, except that S2 appeared unpredictably in only one-third of the trials. Results of Experiment 2 closely replicated those of Experiment 1: the cross-task Simon effect was much greater when S2 was presented alone. Experiment 3 differed from Experiment 1 because S2 had to be processed in only one-third of the trials, in which its identity was to be reported. In the remaining two-thirds of the trials, participants could ignore S2. Results confirmed that the cross-task Simon effect was much greater when S2 was presented alone. In contrast, it did not matter whether S2 had to be processed or not. In conclusion, the present study supports the hypothesis that the task-irrelevant spatial code of the stimulus is formed automatically, likely through an exogenously triggered selection. The role of endogenously initiated selection, if any, is much less important.     

A model of three-choice discrimination learning under complete and incomplete feedback conditions

The Bower and Trabasso model of concept identification was extended to cover problems in which three stimuli were presented simultaneously and S pointed to the one he thought was correct. The E gave complete feedback by indicating the correct stimulus, or incomplete feedback by saying “correct” or “wrong.” The model accurately accounted for the significant difference in total errors between the two feedback conditions by incorporating process assumptions reflecting the logical difference in information content of the two types of feedback. Using a single set of parameter estimates, the model made satisfactory quantitative predictions of several statistics for both feedback conditions. Some deviations from the model's predictions were found in the length of terminal error runs, indicating that Ss were possibly using memory more extensively than posited by the model.