Late backward effects in the refractory period paradigm: effects of Task 2 execution on Task 1 performance

Abstract

The central bottleneck model assumes that in the psychological refractory paradigm, Task 1 performance is independent of Task 2 demands. Previous studies, however, have reported backward crosstalk effects of motor demands in Task 2 on Task 1 performance. These effects have been attributed to interference at the central level. The present study aimed to isolate more directly potential backward effects at the motor level. Therefore, in three experiments, movement distance in Task 2 was manipulated using a guided ballistic movement. The results showed that movement distance in Task 2 affected reaction time as well as response duration in Task 1. It is argued that the backward effect observed in this study is due to response coupling at motor rather than central levels.

Processing order in dual-tasks when the duration of motor responses varies

“…First, there is strong evidence that motor processing cannot be performed in parallel when both tasks involve homologous limbs (Bratzke et al, 2008;Bratzke et al, 2009;De Jong, 1993;Ruiz Fernández & Ulrich, 2010;Ulrich et al, 2006). This assumption is supported by the present study.…”

“…Although the central bottleneck model provides a parsimonious account of several RT phenomena associated with the PRP paradigm, other research has indicated that processes prior to response selection (Johnston & McCann, 2006;Koch & Jolicoeur, 2007;Koch & Prinz, 2002) and motor processes (Bratzke et. al., 2008;Bratzke, Rolke, & Ulrich, 2009;;De Jong, 1993;Ruiz Fernández & Ulrich, 2010;Ulrich, 2006) can be subject to dual-task interference as well.…”

“…As mentioned above, research has indicated that under certain task conditions, motor processes in dual tasking are subject to interference (Bratzke et al, 2009;Bratzke et al 1 , 2008;De Jong, 1993;Ruiz Fernández & Ulrich, 2010;Ulrich et al, 2006). Ulrich et al, (2006), for example, manipulated the duration of the first response (R1) and required their participants to respond to a tone (low vs. high) with a ballistic movement (left hand) of different distances (short vs. long).…”

Disentangling stimulus and response compatibility as potential sources of backward crosstalk

“…Here, the results differed between the two experiments-that is, we only found evidence for an effect of R 2 −R 1 compatibility in the dual-task setting of the latter experiment. Nevertheless, the R 2 −R 1 compatibility effect in Experiment 2 clearly shows the possibility of T 2 interference independent from S 2 −R 1 compatibility, and this is generally in line with earlier findings demonstrating that T 1 -irrelevant characteristics of T 2 can still influence T 1 performance (e.g., Miller & Alderton, 2006;Ruiz Fernández & Ulrich, 2010). Like many earlier BCEs, the neutral-condition R 2 −R 1 compatibility effect seems to contradict pure RSB accounts of dual-task performance and to require an extension involving something like automatic response activation (Hommel, 1998).…”

To prepare or not to prepare? When preparation of a response in Task 2 induces extra performance costs in Task 1

“…The most-well known other type are compatibilitybased BCEs, which are likely caused by automatic response feature activation occurring in Task 2 (Hommel, 1998;Huestegge, Pieczykolan, & Janczyk, 2018;Janczyk, Pfister, Hommel, & Kunde, 2014;Janczyk et al, 2018;Lien & Proctor, 2000;Logan & Delheimer, 2001;Logan & Schulkind, 2000;Oriet, Tombu, & Jolicoeur, 2005;Schubert, Fischer, & Stelzel, 2008;Watter & Logan, 2006; see Durst & Janczyk, 2019, for a direct comparison). To allow for a more precise distinction of backward crosstalk phenomena, future studies should investigate to what extent the no-go BCE differs from still other types of BCEs, which seem to be based on motor processes in Task 1, Task 2, or even both tasks (Miller & Alderton, 2006;Ruiz Fernández & Ulrich, 2010).…”