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 betwee...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Attention, perception & psychophysics Vol. 80; no. 3; pp. 752 - 772
Main Authors: Maquestiaux, François, Ruthruff, Eric, Defer, Alexis, Ibrahime, Stéphane
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: New York Springer US 01.04.2018
Springer Nature B.V
Springer Verlag
Subjects:
Automaticity
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Cognition & reasoning
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive science
Compatibility
Competition
Experiments
Feedback (Response)
Motor ability
Observation
Parallel processing
Psychological refractory period
Psychology
Sensory perception
Short term memory
Stimuli
Stimulus
Task performance
Tasks
Practice
Automatization
Dual-task interference
Attention
Modality compatibility
ISSN:1943-3921, 1943-393X, 1943-393X
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1943-3921
1943-393X
1943-393X
DOI:10.3758/s13414-017-1469-4