Ideomotor compatibility enables automatic response selection

Abstract

A task is ideomotor (IM)-compatible when there is high conceptual similarity between the stimulus and the associated response (e.g., pressing a left key when an arrow points to the left). For such an easy task, can response selection operate automatically, bypassing the attentional bottleneck that normally constrains dual-task performance? To address this question, we manipulated the IM compatibility of a Task 2 that was performed concurrently with a non-IM-compatible Task 1, using the psychological refractory period procedure. Single-task trials, randomly intermixed with dual-task trials, served as a baseline against which to assess dual-task costs. The results indicated bottleneck bypassing (i.e., simultaneous response selection on both tasks) when Task 2 was IM-compatible, as evidenced by negligible dual-task costs on Task 2 (as well as on Task 1), very high percentages of response reversals, and weak correlations between Task-1 and Task-2 reaction times. These findings were supported by a finegrained simulation analysis of inter-response intervals. We conclude that the perception of an IM-compatible stimulus directly activates the response code, which can then be selecting automatically, without recruiting central attention, consistent with A. G.

Testing the over-reliance on central attention (ORCA) hypothesis: Do older adults have difficulty automatizing especially easy tasks?

“…Interestingly, whereas the ability to automatize was negatively correlated with advancing age, it was uncorrelated with task speed. Third, both experiments replicated Maquestiaux et al’s (2020) findings that IM tasks can consistently be automatized and bypass the central bottleneck, at least for younger adults. Fourth, the results support the ORCA hypothesis, according to which older adults tend to strategically overapply central attention to novel tasks.…”

“…An example would be saying the word you hear (known as shadowing ) or moving your finger to the location of a stimulus. Such easy tasks are automatic for younger adults (Maquestiaux et al, 2020), but might not be for older adults.…”

Electrophysiological evidence against parallel motor processing during multitasking

“…As a result, parallel automatic T b (T 2 ) response activation might interfere with the response selection process of T p (T 1 ; e.g., Hommel, 1998; Janczyk et al., 2018; Thomson et al., 2015). Critically, it is not clear whether this response activation reflects parallel automatic motor activation or some kind of generic activation that is not related to motor cortex activity and could arise due to parallel automatic premotor response selection processes (e.g., Maquestiaux et al., 2020). It is also unclear whether the BCE should be attributed to premotor or motor processes within resource‐sharing models.…”

Evidence of resource sharing in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm.

“…In line with these speculations, other studies have found that dual-task processing also depends on task structure (e.g., ideomotor and stimulus-response compatibility, cf. Halvorson, Ebner, & Hazeltine, 2013; Lien et al, 2002, 2005; Maquestiaux et al, 2020), as well as on the cognitive control processes that coordinate the instructed task order (e.g., Kübler et al, 2022a, 2022b; Luria & Meiran, 2003; Steinhauser et al, 2021). Furthermore, motor-level interference might also be involved because there is evidence that initiating a T 1 response prevents initiating a T 2 response in close succession (Keele, 1973; Klapp et al, 2019; Ulrich et al, 2006).…”

“…One may speculate that the present T 2 performance advantage could be caused solely by reactive (i.e., online) changes in preparatory processes without assuming any sharing or reallocation of limited processing resources (i.e., resources that are required for actual task processing). Accordingly, even though participants only process one task at a time (i.e., with 100% of processing resources), they could be slower in retrieving the T 1 -specific than T 2 -specific S-R mappings from working memory at long SOA, because they initially prepared both T 1 and T 2 mappings (and potentially also the switch between these tasks) and after completing T 1 they can fully load up preparation for T 2 (for a similar suggestion, see Maquestiaux et al, 2020). In other words, participants may keep S-R mappings for both tasks active during T 1 processing, but afterward only the ones for T 2 .…”