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.     

Parallel response selection in dual-task situations

Semantic priming and response priming were studied in a dual-task procedure. In two experiments, reaction times to the first and second stimuli were faster when the finger required for the Task 1 response was the same as the finger required for the Task 2 response. Such priming suggests that Task 2 response information was generated prior to the completion of Task 1 response selection. These data pose a potential challenge to the response-selection bottleneck (RSB) theory of dual-task performance, since they may indicate a violation of the discrete-stage processing assumption on which the underlying locus-of-slack logic depends. Accommodating these data while preserving the essential bottleneck character of RSB theory may be possible but may also alter the very nature of the bottleneck itself.     

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.     

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。     

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     

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.     

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.     

Localizing practice effects in dual-task performance

Practice effects on dual-task processing are of interest in current research because they may reveal the scope and limits of parallel task processing. Here we used onsets of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), a time marker for the termination of response selection, to assess processing changes after five consecutive dual-task sessions with three stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and priority on Task 1. Practice reduced reaction times in both tasks and the interference between tasks. As indicated by the LRP, the reduction of dual-task costs can be explained most parsimoniously by a shortening of the temporal demands of central bottleneck stages, without assuming parallel processing. However, the LRP also revealed a hitherto unreported early activation over the parietal scalp after practice in the short SOA condition, possibly indicating the isolation of stimulus–response translation from other central processing stages. In addition, further evidence was obtained from the LRP for a late motoric bottleneck, which is robust against practice.     

Localizing practice effects in dual-task performance

Practice effects on dual-task processing are of interest in current research because they may reveal the scope and limits of parallel task processing. Here we used onsets of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), a time marker for the termination of response selection, to assess processing changes after five consecutive dual-task sessions with three stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and priority on Task 1. Practice reduced reaction times in both tasks and the interference between tasks. As indicated by the LRP, the reduction of dual-task costs can be explained most parsimoniously by a shortening of the temporal demands of central bottleneck stages, without assuming parallel processing. However, the LRP also revealed a hitherto unreported early activation over the parietal scalp after practice in the short SOA condition, possibly indicating the isolation of stimulus-response translation from other central processing stages. In addition, further evidence was obtained from the LRP for a late motoric bottleneck, which is robust against practice.     

Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: graded capacity sharing or central postponement?

Most studies using the psychological refractory period (PRP) design suggest that dual-task performance is limited by a central bottleneck. Because subjects are usually told to emphasize Task 1, however, the bottleneck might reflect a strategic choice rather than a structural limitation. To evaluate the possibility that central operations can proceed in parallel, albeit with capacity limitations, we conducted two dual-task experiments with equal task emphasis. In both experiments, subjects tended to either group responses together or respond to one task well before the other. In addition, stimulus-response compatibility effects were roughly constant across stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). At the short SOA, compatibility effects also carried over onto response times for the other task. This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with the possibility that subjects share capacity roughly equally between simultaneous central operations. However, this pattern is consistent with the existence of a structural central 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.     

Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck

The present experiment examined the effects of input/output modality pairings on dual-task performance using the psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure. Four groups of participants performed two tasks composed of the same sets of inputs (visual and auditory) and the same sets of outputs (manual and vocal), but with different input/output modality pairings. Whereas modality pairings had only small effects on single-task reaction times, they had large effects on dual-task reaction times. The modality pairing effect cannot stem from differences in the difficulty of stimulus classification or response execution, because these task demands were the same across groups. The effect also does not appear to result from changes in stimulus-response compatibility. The present findings suggest dual-task interference arises not only from postponement of central operations (due to a central bottleneck), but also from a slowing of central operations whose magnitude is sensitive to the input/output modality pairings.     

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.     

Dual-task automatization: The key role of sensory–motor modality compatibility

How do people automatize their dual-task performance through bottleneck bypassing (i.e., accomplish parallel processing of the central stages of two tasks)? In the present work we addressed this question, evaluating the impact of sensory–motor modality compatibility—the similarity in modality between the stimulus and the consequences of the response. We hypothesized that incompatible sensory–motor modalities (e.g., visual–vocal) create conflicts within modality-specific working memory subsystems, and therefore predicted that tasks producing such conflicts would be performed less automatically after practice. To probe for automaticity, we used a transfer psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure: Participants were first trained on a visual task (Exp. 1) or an auditory task (Exp. 2) by itself, which was later presented as Task 2, along with an unpracticed Task 1. The Task 1–Task 2 sensory–motor modality pairings were either compatible (visual–manual and auditory–vocal) or incompatible (visual–vocal and auditory–manual). In both experiments we found converging indicators of bottleneck bypassing (small dual-task interference and a high rate of response reversals) for compatible sensory–motor modalities, but indicators of bottlenecking (large dual-task interference and few response reversals) for incompatible sensory–motor modalities. Relatedly, the proportion of individuals able to bypass the bottleneck was high for compatible modalities but very low for incompatible modalities. We propose that dual-task automatization is within reach when the tasks rely on codes that do not compete within a working memory subsystem.

     

Exploring cross-task compatibility in perceiving and producing facial expressions using electromyography

Using a dual-task methodology we examined the interaction of perceiving and producing facial expressions. In one task, participants were asked to produce a smile or a frown (Task 2) in response to a tone stimulus. This auditory-facial task was embedded in a dual-task context, where the other task (Task 1) required a manual response to visual face stimuli (visual-manual task). These face stimuli showed facial expressions that were either compatible or incompatible to the to-be-produced facial expression. Both reaction times and error rates (measured by facial electromyography) revealed a robust stimulus–response compatibility effect across tasks, suggesting that perceived social actions automatically activate corresponding actions even if perceived and produced actions belong to different tasks. The dual-task nature of this compatibility effect further testifies that encoding of facial expressions is highly automatic.     

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.     

Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model

The divergent predictions of 2 models of dual-task performance are investigated. The central bottleneck and central capacity sharing models argue that a central stage of information processing is capacity limited, whereas stages before and after are capacity free. The models disagree about the nature of this central capacity limitation. The central bottleneck model claims that central processing acts on only 1 task at a time and, therefore, constitutes a bottleneck that processes tasks serially. The central capacity sharing model postulates that the central stage is a limited-capacity parallel processor that divides resources among to-be-performed tasks. As a result of this difference, in the psychological refractory period paradigm, the central capacity sharing model predicts that lengthening Task 2 precentral processing will improve Task 1 performance at short stimulus onset asynchronies, whereas the central bottleneck model does not. Results of 2 experiments confirm the prediction of the central capacity sharing model.     

Mental rotation, memory scanning, and the central bottleneck

Two reaction-time experiments using the psychological refractory period paradigm examined whether two prominent tasks, i.e., mental rotation and memory scanning, require access to a single-channel mechanism and must therefore be performed sequentially with other operations requiring the same mechanism. On each trial, subjects made speeded responses to a tone (Exp. 1) or a character (Exp. 2, with symbolic SR-compatibility of the character manipulated) as Task 1 and to a letter (for blocks with mental rotation) or a digit (for blocks with memory scanning) as Task 2. The set-size effect was constant across SOAs, suggesting that memory scanning cannot be performed in parallel with response selection of Task 1. The effect of orientation, however, decreased with decreasing SOA. The decrease was even intensified if Task 1 bottleneck processes were prolonged by symbolic SR-compatibility. The exact pattern of underadditivity, however, was not predicted by current theories of dual-task performance. The results contradict a central bottleneck model but are in line with extensions of the model proposed by Meyer and Kieras. Received: 21 January 1998 / Accepted: 15 June 1998     

Concurrent deployment of visual attention and response selection bottleneck in a dual-task: Electrophysiological and behavioural evidence

Visual attention and response selection are limited in capacity. Here, we investigated whether visual attention requires the same bottleneck mechanism as response selection in a dual-task of the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. The dual-task consisted of an auditory two-choice discrimination Task 1 and a conjunction search Task 2, which were presented at variable temporal intervals (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA). In conjunction search, visual attention is required to select items and to bind their features resulting in a serial search process around the items in the search display (i.e., set size). We measured the reaction time of the visual search task (RT2) and the N2pc, an event-related potential (ERP), which reflects lateralized visual attention processes. If the response selection processes in Task 1 influence the visual attention processes in Task 2, N2pc latency and amplitude would be delayed and attenuated at short SOA compared to long SOA. The results, however, showed that latency and amplitude were independent of SOA, indicating that visual attention was concurrently deployed to response selection. Moreover, the RT2 analysis revealed an underadditive interaction of SOA and set size. We concluded that visual attention does not require the same bottleneck mechanism as response selection in dual-tasks.     

How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening?

The present study assessed three hypotheses of how practice reduces dual-task interference: Practice teaches participants to efficiently integrate performance of a task pair; practice promotes automatization of individual tasks, allowing the central bottleneck to be bypassed; practice leaves the bottleneck intact but shorter in duration. These hypotheses were tested in two transfer-of-training experiments. Participants received one of three training types (Task 1 only, or Task 2 only, or dual-task), followed by dual-task test sessions. Practice effects in Experiment 1 (Task 1: auditory-vocal; Task 2: visual-manual) were fully explained by the intact bottleneck hypothesis, without task integration or automatization. This hypothesis also accounted well for the majority of participants when the task order was reversed (Experiment 2). In this case, however, there were multiple indicators that several participants had succeeded in eliminating the bottleneck by automatizing one or both tasks. Neither experiment provided any evidence that practice promotes efficient task integration.