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...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Psychological research Ročník 84; číslo 2; s. 380 - 388
Hlavní autoři: Fintor, Edina, Poljac, Edita, Stephan, Denise N., Koch, Iring
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.03.2020
Springer Nature B.V
Témata:
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
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí: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.
Bibliografie: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