Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies

Three experiments using psychological refractory period (PRP) tasks documented backward crosstalk effects in which the nature of the second-task response influenced the first-task response latencies. Such effects are difficult to explain within currently popular bottleneck models, according to which second-task response selection does not begin until first-task response selection has finished. In Experiments 1 and 2, the first of the PRP tasks required a choice reaction time (RT) response, whereas the second task required a go/no-go decision. Task 1 responses were faster when the second task required a go response than when it required a no-go response. Experiment 3 showed that Task 1 RTs were also influenced by the complexity of second-task responses. These backward crosstalk effects indicate that significant second-task processing is carried out in time to influence first-task responses and thus challenge strictly serial bottleneck models.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck

The authors investigated the impact of response activation on dual-task performance by presenting a subliminal prime before the stimulus in Task 2 (S2) of a psychological refractory period (PRP) task. Congruence between prime and S2 modulated the reaction times in Task 2 at short stimulus onset asynchrony despite a PRP effect. This Task 2 congruence effect was paralleled by a Task 1 congruence effect and emerged exclusively under conditions of cross talk, whereas it did not occur under dual-task conditions preventing cross talk between tasks. This suggests that response activation operates during the PRP in dual tasks and affects the response times in Task 2 via cross talk between common processing elements at prebottleneck stages but not by directly affecting the postbottleneck stages.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

Why practice reduces dual-task interference

M. A. Van Selst, E. Ruthruff, and J. C. Johnston (1999) found that practice dramatically reduced dual-task interference in a Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm with 1 vocal response and 1 manual response. Results from 3 further experiments using the highly trained participants of M. A. Van Selst et al. (1999) support 4 main conclusions: (a) A processing bottleneck exists even after extensive practice; (b) the principal cause of the reduction in PRP interference with practice is shortening of Task 1 bottleneck stages; (c) a secondary cause is that 1 or more, but not all, of the Task 2 substages that are postponed before practice are not postponed after practice (i.e., become automatized); and (d) the extent of PRP reduction with practice depends on the modalities of the 2 responses. A control experiment with 2 manual response tasks showed less PRP reduction with practice than that found by Van Selst et al.     

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.     

Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors

According to the extended bottleneck model, dual-task interference does not arise only from a central bottleneck but also from processing limitations at the motor stage. Evidence for this assumption has previously been found only for same-effector tasks but not for different-effector tasks. In order to examine the existence of motor interference with different effectors, we used the psychological refractory period paradigm and employed response sequences of different length in Task 1 (R1 sequence length). Experiment 1 incorporated vocal response sequences in Task 1 and a manual response in Task 2. In Experiment 2, the assignment of the effectors to the two tasks was reversed. In both experiments, the long R1 sequence prolonged reaction time for Task 2 (RT2), and this effect was reduced with decreasing temporal overlap of the two tasks. Thus, the present experiments demonstrate motor interference between different-effector tasks. This interference may be due to on-line programming or to central response monitoring.     

Anticipatory affect during action preparation: evidence from backward compatibility in dual-task performance

Upcoming responses in the second of two subsequently performed tasks can speed up compatible responses in the temporally preceding first task. Two experiments extend previous demonstration of such backward compatibility to affective features: responses to affective stimuli were faster in Task 1 when an affectively compatible response effect was anticipated for Task 2. This emotional backward-compatibility effect demonstrates that representations of the affective consequences of the Task 2 response were activated before the selection of a response in Task 1 was completed. This finding is problematic for the assumption of a serial stimulus-response translation stage. It also shows that the affective consequence of a response is anticipated during, and has an impact on stimulus-response translation, which implies that action planning considers codes representing and predicting the emotional consequences of actions. Implications for the control of emotional actions are discussed.     

Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions

The standard bottleneck model of the psychological refractory period (PRP) assumes that the selection of the second response is postponed until the first response has been selected. Accordingly, dual-task interference is attributed to a single central-processing bottleneck involving decision and response selection, but not the execution of the response itself. In order to critically examine the assumption that response execution is not part of this bottleneck, we systematically manipulated the temporal demand for executing the first response in a classical PRP paradigm. Contrary to the assumption of the standard bottleneck model, this manipulation affected the reaction time for Task 2. Specifically, reaction time for Task 2 increased with execution time for Task 1. This carryover effect from Task 1 to Task 2 provides evidence for the notion that response execution can be part of the processing bottleneck.     

Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials

The present dual-task study used lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) and behavioral measures to determine whether response activation for Task 1 and Task 2 can occur in parallel. We also examined whether task similarity (known as dimensional overlap) increases parallel central processing by making it difficult to selectively activate one task set. With dimensional overlap, the behavioral data replicated previous findings of backward correspondence effects: The Task 1 response was influenced by its compatibility with the Task 2 response. This finding suggests parallel response activation. The LRP data supported this conclusion: Task 2 response activation (indexed by the LRP) began before Task 1 central operations had finished. When there was no dimensional overlap, backward correspondence effects could not be measured, but the LRP data confirmed that parallel response activation still occurred. We argue that parallel response activation does occur, perhaps due to accidental activation of Task 2 mapping rules when the intention is to selectively execute Task 1 mapping rules.     

When underadditivity of factor effects in the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm implies a bottleneck: Evidence from psycholinguistics

The Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm is a dual-task procedure that can be used to examine the resource demands of specific cognitive processes. Inferences about the underlying processes are typically based on performance in the second of two speeded tasks. If the effect of a factor manipulated in Task 2 decreases as the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between tasks decreases (underadditivity), the normative inference is that the effect of this factor occurs prior to a limited-capacity central processing mechanism. In contrast, if the effect of a factor is additive with SOA then the inference is that this indexes a process that either uses a limited-capacity central processing mechanism or occurs after some process that uses this mechanism. A heretofore unidentified exception to this logic arises when Task 2 involves two separate processes that operate in parallel, but compete. Interference with one process in Task 2 because of work on Task 1 will eliminate or reduce competition within Task 2 and is hence manifest as an underadditive interaction with decreasing SOA. This is illustrated here by reference to a PRP experiment in which the ubiquitous effect of spelling-to-sound regularity on reading aloud time is eliminated at a short SOA and by consideration of three converging lines of investigation in the PRP paradigm when Task 2 involves reading aloud.     

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.     

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.     

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     

A PRP-study to determine the locus of target priming effects

Visual stimuli that are made invisible by a following mask can nonetheless affect motor responses. To localize the origin of these target priming effects we used the psychological refractory period paradigm. Participants classified tones as high or low, and responded to the position of a visual target that was preceded by a prime. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between both tasks varied. In Experiment 1 the tone task was followed by the position task and SOA dependent target priming effects were observed. When the visual position task preceded the tone task in Experiment 2, with short SOA the priming effect propagated entirely to the tone task yielding faster responses to tones on visually congruent trials and delayed responses to tones on visually incongruent trials. Together, results suggest that target priming effects arise from processing before and at the level of the central bottleneck such as sensory analysis and response selection.     

Working memory involvement in dual-task performance: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect

In three experiments, the authors supported the hypothesis that parallel response activation seen in dual-task performance results from holding Task 2 rules in working memory (WM) while performing Task 1. To this end, the authors used the backward compatibility effect (BCE; quicker primary responses when the Task 2 response is compatible with codes of Task 1) as a marker for parallel response activation and manipulated WM load. Increasing the number of primary task rules from two to four did not modulate BCE, replicating Hommel and Eglau (2002), but a higher load condition, involving six primary task rules, reduced the BCE to nonsignificant levels. Experiment 3 further showed that WM is loaded by rules associating abstract stimulus categories to responses, and not by rules tt associate individual stimuli to responses (S-R rules).