Response-repetition effects in task switching - dissociating effects of anatomical and spatial response discriminability

In task switching, response repetitions typically lead to performance benefits for task repetitions but costs for task switches. We examined whether this cost–benefit pattern is affected by response discriminability (RD), varying (a) the anatomical response separation (within-hand vs. between-hand responses) and (b) the spatial separation (close vs. far response keys). We assumed that anatomical RD increases response competition generally, whereas spatial RD increases the salience of left–right coding and thus facilitates response selection. In two experiments, we found that spatial RD increased the response-repetition costs in task switches but similarly decreased the response-repetition benefit in task repetitions. The effect of spatial RD was response-specific but did not interact with task switching. This data pattern is consistent with a recent account that proposed that facilitated response selection increases response “self-inhibition” after response execution. In contrast, the influence of anatomical RD primarily consisted of an overall increase of reaction-time level in all conditions, whereas error rates decreased, suggesting a general shift in response criterion. Taken together, the data suggest that a self-inhibition mechanism on the level of motor response codes contributes to response-repetition effects in task switching, which is possibly independent of task-specific mechanisms of strengthening of associations.     

Influences of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect

When lateralized responses are made to the locations of vertically arrayed stimuli, two types of mapping effect have been reported: an overall up–right/down–left advantage and mapping preferences that vary with response position. According to Cho and Proctor's (2003) multiple asymmetric codes account, these orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects are due to the correspondence of stimulus polarity and response polarity, as determined by the positions relative to multiple frames of reference. The present study examined these two types of orthogonal compatibility for situations in which participants made left–right responses to the colours of a vertically arrayed stimulus set, and stimulus location was irrelevant. Although a significant orthogonal Simon effect was not evident when responding at a centred, neutral response position, the effect was modulated by response eccentricity (Experiment 2) and hand posture (Experiment 3). These effects are qualitatively similar to those obtained when stimulus location is task relevant. The results imply that, as Proctor and Cho's (2006) polarity correspondence principle suggests, the stimulus polarity code activates the response code of corresponding polarity even when stimulus location is irrelevant to the task.     

An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus,but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli

Withholding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) action feature (e.g., response hand). We investigated whether this phenomenon, termed compatibility interference (CI), occurs for responses associated with a target as well as responses associated with distractors in a visual selection task. Participants planned and withheld a sequence of keypress responses (with their right or left hand), according to the identity of a stimulus (A), and then immediately executed a keypress response (with their right or left hand) to a second stimulus (B), according to the identity of a target letter appearing alone or among distractor letters. Distractor letters were either response compatible or incompatible with the target and appeared either simultaneously with the target (Experiments 1A and 2) or 100 msec before the target (Experiment 1B). Also, stimulus-response mapping was either 1:1 (Experiment 1) or 2:1 (Experiment 2). Results showed that the response to the Stimulus B target was delayed when it required the same response hand as Stimulus A, as opposed to a different hand. Also, the target reaction time for Stimulus B was greater when the target was flanked by incompatible distractors than when it was flanked by compatible distractors. Moreover, the degree of CI was consistent across the compatible-, incompatible-, and no-distractor conditions, indicating that CI generalizes to responses associated with a target, but not to those associated with distractors. Thus, CI occurs at a response selection, not at a response activation stage. Implications for the code occupation account for CI (e.g., Stoet & Hommel, 1999, 2002) and an alternative account for CI are discussed.     

Holding a manual response sequence in memory can disrupt vocal responses that share semantic features with the manual response

Holding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) feature. This compatibility interference (CI) occurs for actions that share the same response modality (e.g., manual response). We investigated whether CI can generalize to actions that utilize different response modalities (manual and vocal). In three experiments, participants planned and withheld a sequence of key-presses with the left- or right-hand based on the visual identity of the first stimulus, and then immediately executed a speeded, vocal response (‘left’ or ‘right’) to a second visual stimulus. The vocal response was based on discriminating stimulus color (Experiment 1), reading a written word (Experiment 2), or reporting the antonym of a written word (Experiment 3). Results showed that CI occurred when the manual response hand (e.g., left) was compatible with the identity of the vocal response (e.g., ‘left’) in Experiment 1 and 3, but not in Experiment 2. This suggests that partial overlap of semantic codes is sufficient to obtain CI unless the intervening action can be accessed automatically (Experiment 2). These findings are consistent with the code occupation hypothesis and the general framework of the theory of event coding (Behav Brain Sci 24:849–878, 2001a; Behav Brain Sci 24:910–937, 2001b).     

The costs of changing the representation of action: response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks

In 5 experiments, the authors investigated the costs associated with repeating the same or a similar response in a dual-task setting. Using a psychological refractory period paradigm, they obtained response-repetition costs when the cognitive representation of a specific response (i.e., the category-response mapping) changed (Experiment 1) but benefits when it did not change (Experiment 2). The analogous pattern of results was found for conceptually similar (i.e. compatible) responses. Response-response compatibility costs occurred when the cognitive representations of the compatible responses were different (Experiments 3A & 3B), but compatibility benefits occurred when they were the same (Experiment 4). The authors interpret the costs of repeating an identical or compatible response in terms of a general mechanism of action selection that involves coding the task-specific meaning of a response.     

Influence of auditory and audiovisual stimuli on the right–left prevalence effect

When auditory stimuli are used in two-dimensional spatial compatibility tasks, where the stimulus and response configurations vary along the horizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously, a right–left prevalence effect occurs in which horizontal compatibility dominates over vertical compatibility. The right–left prevalence effects obtained with auditory stimuli are typically larger than that obtained with visual stimuli even though less attention should be demanded from the horizontal dimension in auditory processing. In the present study, we examined whether auditory or visual dominance occurs when the two-dimensional stimuli are audiovisual, as well as whether there will be cross-modal facilitation of response selection for the horizontal and vertical dimensions. We also examined whether there is an additional benefit of adding a pitch dimension to the auditory stimulus to facilitate vertical coding through use of the spatial-musical association of response codes (SMARC) effect, where pitch is coded in terms of height in space. In Experiment 1, we found a larger right–left prevalence effect for unimodal auditory than visual stimuli. Neutral, non-pitch coded, audiovisual stimuli did not result in cross-modal facilitation, but did show evidence of visual dominance. The right–left prevalence effect was eliminated in the presence of SMARC audiovisual stimuli, but the effect influenced horizontal rather than vertical coding. Experiment 2 showed that the influence of the pitch dimension was not in terms of influencing response selection on a trial-to-trial basis, but in terms of altering the salience of the task environment. Taken together, these findings indicate that in the absence of salient vertical cues, auditory and audiovisual stimuli tend to be coded along the horizontal dimension and vision tends to dominate audition in this two-dimensional spatial stimulus–response task.     

S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding

Responses are faster with spatial S-R correspondence than with noncorrespondence (spatial compatibility effect), even if stimulus location is irrelevant (Simon effect). In two experiments, we sought to determine whether stimuli located above and below a fixation point are coded as left and right (and thus affect the selection of left and right responses) if the visual context suggests such a coding. So, stimuli appeared on the left or right eye of a face’s image that was tilted by 90° to one side or the other (Experiment 1) or varied between upright and 45° or 90° tilting (Experiment 2). Whether stimulus location was relevant (Experiment 1) or not (Experiment 2), responses were faster with correspondence of (face-based) stimulus location and (egocentrically defined) response location, even if stimulus and response locations varied on physically orthogonal dimensions. This suggests that object-based spatial stimulus codes are formed automatically and thus influence the speed of response selection.     

Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Vertically Oriented Stimuli and Horizontally Oriented Responses: Evidence for Spatial Coding

It has previously been shown that, when stimuli positioned above or below a central fixation point (“up” and “down” stimuli) are assigned to left and right responses, the stimulus-response mapping up-left/down-right is more compatible than the mapping up-right/down-left for responses executed by the left hand in the left hemispace, but this relation is reversed for responses executed by the right hand in the right hemispace. In Experiment 1, each hand responded at locations in both hemispaces to dissociate the influence of hand identity from response location, and response location was found to be the determinant of relative compatibility. In Experiment 2 responses were made at the sagittal midline, and an inactive response switch was placed to the left or right to induce coding of the active switch as right or left, respectively. This manipulation of relative location had an effect similar to, although of lesser magnitude than, that produced by physically changing location of the response switch in Experiment 1. It is argued that these results are counter to predictions of a movement-preference account and consistent with the view that spatial coding underlies compatibility effects for orthogonally oriented stimulus and response sets.     

Orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task irrelevant

The above-right/below-left mapping advantage with vertical stimuli and horizontal responses is known as the orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) effect. We investigated whether the orthogonal SRC effect emerges with irrelevant stimulus dimensions. In Experiment 1, participants responded with a right or left key press to the colour of the stimulus presented above or below the fixation. We observed an above-right/below-left advantage (orthogonal Simon effect). In Experiment 2, we manipulated the polarity in the response dimension by varying the horizontal location of the response set. The orthogonal Simon effect decreased and even reversed as the left response code became more positive. This result provides evidence for the automatic activation of the positive and negative response codes by the corresponding positive and negative stimulus codes. These findings extended the orthogonal SRC effect based on coding asymmetry to an irrelevant stimulus dimension.     

Transfer of orthogonal stimulus–response mappings to an orthogonal Simon task

When up–down stimulus locations are mapped to left–right keypresses, an overall advantage for the up–right/down–left mapping is often obtained that varies as a function of response eccentricity. This orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) effect also occurs when stimulus location is irrelevant, a phenomenon called the orthogonal Simon effect, and has been attributed to correspondence of stimulus and response code polarities. The Simon effect for horizontal stimulus–response (S–R) arrangements has been shown to be affected by short-term S–R associations established through the mapping used for a prior SRC task in which stimulus location was relevant. We examined whether such associations also transfer between orthogonal SRC and Simon tasks and whether correspondence of code polarities continues to contribute to performance in the Simon task. In Experiment 1, the orthogonal Simon effect was larger after practising with an up–right/down–left mapping of visual stimuli to responses than with the alternative mapping, for which the orthogonal Simon effect tended to reverse. Experiment 2 showed similar results when practice was with high (up) and low (down) pitch tones, though the influence of practice mapping was not as large as that in Experiment 1, implying that the short-term S–R associations acquired in practice are at least in part not modality specific. In Experiment 3, response eccentricity and practice mapping were shown to have separate influences on the orthogonal Simon effect, as expected if both code polarity and acquired S–R associations contribute to performance.     

Eliminating the cost of task set reconfiguration

With insufficient time to fully prepare for a switch in task, a deterioration in performance on the first trial of a new task would be expected. The interest of researchers has been captured by the residual switch costs that, surprisingly, remain despite sufficient time to prepare. We used avery simple task to investigate the costs to reaction time and accuracy associated with changing between two different instructional sets every eight trials. Subjects responded to left and right visual targets by making either spatially compatible or incompatible eye movements (Experiment 1) or buttonpress responses (Experiment 2). The subjects were cued as to whether to make the compatible or the incompatible response by the color of a border appearing on the perimeter of the display. In cases in which the subject alternated between making pro- and antisaccades, the large costs to reaction time and accuracy at the short cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony were completely eliminated when sufficient time was provided to prepare for the switch. This complete elimination of residual switch costs was not obtained when the same alternation was applied to manual responses. This pattern of results links residual costs to response selection processes and suggests that they are not a necessary component of the switch process. We propose that the elimination of "stubborn" residual switch costs is rooted in our use of a hypercompatible task (making saccades toward targets) that places minimal demands on response selection.     

Orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task irrelevant

The above-right/below-left mapping advantage with vertical stimuli and horizontal responses is known as the orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect. We investigated whether the orthogonal SRC effect emerges with irrelevant stimulus dimensions. In Experiment 1, participants responded with a right or left key press to the colour of the stimulus presented above or below the fixation. We observed an above-right/below-left advantage (orthogonal Simon effect). In Experiment 2, we manipulated the polarity in the response dimension by varying the horizontal location of the response set. The orthogonal Simon effect decreased and even reversed as the left response code became more positive. This result provides evidence for the automatic activation of the positive and negative response codes by the corresponding positive and negative stimulus codes. These findings extended the orthogonal SRC effect based on coding asymmetry to an irrelevant stimulus dimension.     

Locus of inhibition in the masked priming of response alternatives

Masked prime stimuli presented immediately before target stimuli in a choice reaction task give rise to behavioral costs when the primes and the target stimuli are mapped to the same response and result in benefits when they are mapped to opposite responses. Researchers assume that this negative compatibility effect reflects inhibitory processes in the control of perceptuomotor links. The authors investigated whether the inhibition operates at the level of abstract central codes or at effector-specific motor stages. In 2 experiments (N = 8 participants in each), left or right hand or foot responses were required to target stimuli that were preceded by masked arrow primes mapped to the same response side as the target stimuli in compatible trials and to the opposite response side in incompatible trials; the primes were irrelevant in neutral trials. In Experiment 1, when the masked primes determined both response side and modality, there was no transfer of negative compatibility effects across response modalities. That finding is inconsistent with a central abstract locus of inhibition and suggests that inhibition operates at effector-specific motor stages. In Experiment 2, primes conveyed only response side information but left response modality uncertain, and negative compatibility effects were elicited for both hand and foot responses, suggesting that partially informative masked primes can trigger a parallel activation and subsequent inhibition of response processes within separate effector systems.     

Visual and auditory accessory stimulus offset and the Simon effect

We investigated the effect on the right and left responses of the disappearance of a task-irrelevant stimulus located on the right or left side. Participants pressed a right or left response key on the basis of the color of a centrally located visual target. Visual (Experiment 1) or auditory (Experiment 2) task-irrelevant accessory stimuli appeared or disappeared at locations to the right or left of the central target. In Experiment 1, responses were faster when onset or offset of the visual accessory stimulus was spatially congruent with the response. In Experiment 2, responses were again faster when onset of the auditory accessory stimulus and the response were on the same side. However, responses were slightly slower when offset of the auditory accessory stimulus and the response were on the same side than when they were on opposite sides. These findings indicate that transient change information is crucial for a visual Simon effect, whereas sustained stimulation from an ongoing stimulus also contributes to an auditory Simon effect.     

习得性空间联结的迁移依赖于语义工作记忆

采用练习迁移范式与双任务范式相结合的设计来探讨练习所习得的空间联结在工作记忆中如何表征。被试先进行不一致空间的刺激—反应映射练习任务, 五分钟后, 随机迁移到单任务(Simon任务)或者双任务(Simon任务+语义工作记忆负荷任务或空间工作记忆负荷任务)。结果发现：不一致的练习能使单任务出现反转的Simon效应, 但语义工作记忆负荷会使反转的Simon效应消失, 而空间工作记忆负荷却对反转的Simon效应没有影响。实验结果表明练习产生的空间联结依赖于语义工作记忆。     

Orthogonal cross-task compatibility: Abstract spatial coding in dual tasks

Spatially orthogonal stimulus and response sets can produce compatibility effects. To explore whether such effects cross the border of logically independent tasks, we combined a nonspeeded visual task requiring verbal report of a stimulus movement (up vs. down) with an auditory reaction time task that required a unimanual movement to the left or right. Two experiments demonstrated that up stimuli facilitate rightward responses and down stimuli facilitate leftward responses, relative to the opposite combinations, thus producing an orthogonal cross-task compatibility effect. This effect presumably arises from abstract coding with respect to the salient referents of a spatial dimension (i.e., up and right), so that coactivation of structurally similar codes leads to mutual priming even when the codes refer to different tasks. The present evidence for abstract spatial coding extends previously proposed coding principles from single-task settings to dual-task settings.     

Effects of stimulus features and instruction on response coding,selection, and inhibition: Evidence from repetition effects under task switching

The coding of stimuli and responses is crucial for human behaviour. Here, we focused primarily on the response codes (or response categories). As a method, we applied a combined dual-task and task-switch paradigm with a fixed task-to-hand mapping. Usually, negative effects (i.e., costs) are observed for response category repetitions under task switching. However, in several previous studies it has been proposed that such repetition effects do not occur, if the stimulus categories (e.g., “odd” if digits have to be classified according to their parity feature) are unequivocally mapped to specific responses. Our aim was to test this hypothesis. In the present experiments, we were able to distinguish between three different types of possible response codes. The results show that the participants generally code their responses according to abstract response features (left/right, or index/middle finger). Moreover, the spatial codes were preferred over the finger-type codes even if the instructions stressed the latter. This preference, though, seemed to result from a stimulus–response feature overlap, so that the spatial response categories were primed by the respective stimulus features. If there was no such overlap, the instructions determined which type of response code was involved in response selection and inhibition.     

Between-task transfer of learning from spatial compatibility to a color stroop task

Responses to a relevant stimulus dimension are faster and more accurate when the stimulus and response spatially correspond compared to when they do not, even though stimulus position is irrelevant (Simon effect). It has been demonstrated that practicing with an incompatible spatial stimulus-response (S-R) mapping before performing a Simon task can eliminate this effect. In the present study we assessed whether a learned spatially incompatible S-R mapping can be transferred to a nonspatial conflict task, hence supporting the view that transfer effects are due to acquisition of a general "respond to the opposite stimulus value" rule. To this aim, we ran two experiments in which participants performed a spatial compatibility task with either a compatible or an incompatible mapping and then transferred, after a 5 min delay, to a color Stroop task. In Experiment 1, responses were executed by pressing one of two keys on the keyboard in both practice and transfer tasks. In Experiment 2, responses were manual in the practice task and vocal in the transfer task. The spatially incompatible practice significantly reduced the color Stroop effect only when responses were manual in both tasks. These results suggest that during practice participants develop a response-selection strategy of emitting the alternative spatial response.     

A Simon effect for depth in three-dimensional displays

We investigated whether the Simon effect occurs for the depth dimension in a 3-dimensional display. In Experiment 1, participants executed discriminative responses to 2 stimuli, a cross and a sphere, both 3-dimensional, which were perceived to be located near or far with respect to the participant's body. The response keys were located near and far along the participant's midline. Apparent stimulus spatial location (near or far) was irrelevant to the task. Results showed a depth Simon effect, attributable to the apparent stimulus spatial location. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 with a different procedure. The 2 stimuli, a triangle and a rectangle, were 2-dimensional and were perceived as being located near or far from the participant's midline; the response keys were located near and far along the participant's midline. Results showed again the depth Simon effect. Experiment 3 was a control condition in which the 2 stimuli, drawings of a lamp and of a chair, had the same size, regardless of whether they appeared to be near or far. The depth Simon effect was replicated. A distribution analysis on data of Experiment 3 showed that the Simon effect increased as reaction times became longer. In Experiment 4, the position of the 2 stimuli, a circle and a cross, varied on the horizontal (right or left) dimension, whereas the position of the 2 responses varied along the depth (near or far) dimension. No Simon effect was found.     

A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect

Simon effects might partly reflect stimulus-triggered response activation. According to the response-discrimination hypothesis, however, stimulus-triggered response activation shows up in Simon effects only when stimulus locations match the top-down selected spatial codes used to discriminate between alternative responses. Five experiments support this hypothesis. In Experiment 1, spatial codes of each response differed by horizontal and vertical axis position, yet one axis discriminated between alternative responses, whereas the other did not. Simon effects resulted for targets on discriminating axes only. In Experiment 2, both spatial axes discriminated between responses, and targets on both axes produced Simon effects. In Experiment 3, Simon effects resulted for a spatial choice-reaction task but not for a go/no-go task. Even in the go/no-go task, a Simon effect was restored when a two-choice reaction task preceded the go/no-go task (Experiment 4) or when participants initiated trials with responses spatially discriminated from the go response (Experiment 5).