Modality compatibility biases voluntary choice of response modality in task switching

The term modality compatibility refers to the similarity between stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences (e.g., vocal responses produce auditory effects). The previous results showed smaller task-switching costs when participants switched between modality compatib...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychological research Jg. 84; H. 2; S. 380 - 388
Hauptverfasser: Fintor, Edina, Poljac, Edita, Stephan, Denise N., Koch, Iring
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.03.2020
Springer Nature B.V
Schlagworte:
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Language disorders
Mapping
Original Article
Psychology
Psychology Research
Sensory integration
Speech
Visual stimuli
Cognitive control
Voluntary task switching
Modality compatibility
ISSN:0340-0727, 1430-2772, 1430-2772
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The term modality compatibility refers to the similarity between stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences (e.g., vocal responses produce auditory effects). The previous results showed smaller task-switching costs when participants switched between modality compatible tasks (auditory–vocal and visual–manual) compared to switching between modality incompatible tasks (auditory–manual and visual–vocal). In the present study using a voluntary task-switching paradigm (VTS), participants chose the response modality (vocal or manual) to indicate the location of either a visual or an auditory stimulus. We examined whether free task choices were biased by modality compatibility, so that modality compatible tasks are preferred in VTS. The choice probability analysis indicated that participants tended to choose the response modality that is compatible to the stimulus modality. However, participants did not show a preference to repeat a stimulus–response (S–R) modality mapping, but to switch between modality compatibility (i.e., from S–R modality compatible mapping to S–R modality incompatible mapping and vice versa). More interestingly, even though participants freely chose the response modality, modality compatibility still influenced task-switching costs, showing larger costs with modality incompatible mappings. The finding that modality compatibility influenced choice behaviour suggests components of both top–down control and bottom–up effects of selecting a response modality for different stimulus modalities.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0340-0727
1430-2772
1430-2772
DOI:10.1007/s00426-018-1040-5