Abstract
When both tasks in a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm have compatible manual responses, a compatibility benefit in RT can often be observed on Task1 performance, in apparent violation of a strict traditional response selection bottleneck model. This compatibility-based backward crosstalk effect (BCE) has been generally attributed to automatic activation of Task2 response information, in parallel with attended Task1 performance. This paper tests a potential alternative mechanism of the BCE. Item-specific proportion congruency (ISPC) effects are previously well demonstrated, where learning of associations between stimuli and task conflict (e.g., that particular Stroop items are typically incongruent) allows rapidly and automatically elicited control adjustments in performance. Similar proportion manipulations have recently been shown to modulate the BCE in dual-task performance. If participants could similarly learn associations between particular pairs of stimuli and resulting response conflict in a PRP task, this kind of mechanism could produce relative speeding versus slowing of Task1 RT on response compatible versus incompatible trials. This pattern of data directly describes the BCE, and represents a potential alternative mechanism that does not require any response crosstalk, and would reinforce a stricter view of the response selection bottleneck model, if true. Over two experiments, we demonstrate that while the BCE is sensitive to ISPC-like effects based on Task1 conflict contingencies, the BCE is insensitive to relationships between particular pairs of stimuli and associated conflict. While ISPC effects can modulate the BCE, they do not generate the BCE. These findings reinforce the current Task2 parallel response activation account of the BCE.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data sets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
FCEs are commonly observed in Task2. Importantly, they are often larger than BCEs (e.g., Hommel, 1998; Janczyk, 2016; Janczyk, Renas, & Durst, 2018b; Logan & Gordon, 2001; Logan & Schulkind, 2000), indicating they are not simply due to propagation of the BCE onto Task2 (see also Schubert et al. 2008, and Thomson & Watter, 2013, for specific assessments of the propagation of Task2 response activation from Task1 to Task2).
Thomson et al. (2010) observed a BCE even when all Task2 stimuli were encountered only once. They interpreted this as evidence for automatic category-to-response translation proceeding in parallel with central stage processing in Task1. However, it remains possible that rather than associating the automatically retrieved Task2 category information with a response, participants simply learned that particular Task1–Task2 category pairs were more difficult and required additional cognitive control. Once again, while this difficulty on incompatible trials would initially be experienced in Task2 performance, it may eventually become associated with particular category pairs and result in slower performance even in Task1 for incompatible relative to compatible trials.
References
Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. C. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367.
Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1484–1494. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.8.1484.
Corballis, P. M., & Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64(1–2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00109-1.
Crump, M. J., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193850.
Crump, M. J., & Millliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523–1532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902752096.
Crump, M. J., Vaquero, J. M. M., & Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.004.
Durst, M., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Two types of backward crosstalk: Sequential modulations and evidence from the diffusion model. Acta Psychologica, 193, 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.013.
Ellenbogen, R., & Meiran, N. (2008). Working memory involvement in dual-task performance: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Memory & Cognition, 36, 968–978. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.5.968.
Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). Predicting high levels of multitasking reduces between-task interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1482–1487. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000157.
Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034310.
Giammarco, M., Thomson, S. J., & Watter, S. (2016). Dual-task backward compatibility effects are episodically mediated. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 520–541. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0998-y.
Gottschalk, C., & Fischer, R. (2017). Activation of context-specific attentional control sets by exogenous allocation of visual attention to context? Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 81, 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0746-5.
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.5.1368.
Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 66(4), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0100-y.
Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638–644. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196526.
Janczyk, M. (2016). Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(5), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000170.
Janczyk, M., Büschelberger, J., & Herbort, O. (2017). Larger between-task crosstalk in children than in adults: Behavioral results from backward crosstalk paradigm and a diffusion model analysis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 155, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.11.007.
Janczyk, M., Mittelstädt, P., & Wienrich, C. (2018a). Parallel dual-task processing and task shielding in older and younger adults: Behavioral and diffusion model results. Experimental Aging Research, 44, 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2017.1422459.
Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response-from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001.
Janczyk, M., Renas, S., & Durst, M. (2018b). Identifying the locus of compatibility-based backward crosstalk: Evidence from an extended PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000445.
Leboe, J. P., Wong, J., Crump, M., & Stobbe, K. (2008). Probe-specific proportion task repetition effects on switching costs. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(6), 935–945. https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.6.935.
Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212–238. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196277.
Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072–1090. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1072.
Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197535.
Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 36(4), 684–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080661.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220.
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 41(1), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748908402351.
Scherbaum, S., Gottschalk, C., Dshemuchadse, M., & Fischer, R. (2015). Action dynamics in multitasking: The impact of additional task factors on the execution of the prioritized motor movement. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 934. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00934.
Schuch, S., Dignath, D., Steinhauser, M., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Monitoring and control in multitasking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 222–240. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1512-z.
Surrey, C., Dreisbach, C., & Fischer, R. (2017). Context-specific adjustment of cognitive control: Transfer of adaptive control sets. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 2386–2401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1239748.
Thomson, S. J., Danis, L. K., & Watter, S. (2015). PRP training shows Task1 response selection is the locus of the backward response compatibility effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0660-z.
Thomson, S. J., & Watter, S. (2013). Information continuity across the response selection bottleneck: Early parallel Task 2 response activation contributes to overt Task 2 performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(5), 934–953. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0457-6.
Thomson, S. J., Watter, S., & Finkelshtein, A. (2010). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations via automatic category-to-response translation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(7), 1791–1802. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.7.1791.
Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(2), 254–277. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193674.
Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Vietze, I. (2008). Location-specific versus hemisphere-specific adaptation of processing selectivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.135.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Karin R. Humphreys, Esther Manoian, and members of the Cognitive Science Laboratory at McMaster University for useful discussions and assistance with data collection. This work was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Grant #327454 to SW.
Funding
This study was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Grant #327454 to SW.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Author SJT declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author ACS declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author SW declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the McMaster Research Ethics Board, the Canadian Tri-Council Policy, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thomson, S.J., Simone, A.C. & Watter, S. Item-specific proportion congruency (ISPC) modulates, but does not generate, the backward crosstalk effect. Psychological Research 85, 1093–1107 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01318-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01318-z