RESUMEN

Modality-compatible stimulus-response mappings (e.g., responding vocally to an auditory stimulus and manually to a visual stimulus) are often easier to perform than modality-incompatible sets (reversed modality mappings). Here, we investigate sequential, trial-to-trial, modulations of modality compatibility effects. By reanalyzing a previous experiment and conducting two specifically tailored, new experiments, we demonstrate robust within-task sequential modulations. Furthermore, we test for between-task adaptations by intermixing the modality switching task with a Simon task. Results show reliable sequential adaptations within the modality switching task, but no transfer of adaptation between tasks in either direction. We discuss how a combination of prominent theoretical accounts such as conflict adaptation and episodic binding can serve as the cognitive underpinnings of the observed sequential adaptations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

RESUMEN

The present study explored whether dual-task performance is affected by deviations from the expected time point of a secondary task. In two psychological refractory period experiments, participants responded to two tasks, separated by either a short or long delay. In contrast to traditional dual-tasking studies, however, the identity of Task 1 probabilistically predicted the delay after which Task 2 would occur. Violations of these expectations impaired performance in both Task 2 and Task 1. For Task 2, this effect was more pronounced when Task 2 occurred unexpectedly early, while for Task 1, it was more pronounced when Task 2 occurred unexpectedly late. The results are consistent with the notion that processing resources can be shared, and that even in the absence of Task 2, some resources are withheld from Task 1, based on early available Task 1 features. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Human actions sometimes aim at preventing an event from occurring. How these to-be-prevented events are represented, however, is poorly understood. Recent proposals in the literature point to a possible divide between effect-producing, operant actions, and effect-precluding, prevention actions, suggesting that the control of operant actions relies on codes of environment-related effects whereas prevention actions do not. Here we report two experiments on this issue, showing that spatial features (Experiment 1) as well as temporal features (Experiment 2) of to-be-prevented events influence actions in the same way as corresponding features of to-be-produced effects. This implies that selecting and executing prevention actions relies on anticipated environmental changes, comparable to operant actions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Our actions cause manifold environmental changes. Monitoring these action effects serves at least two vital functions: While the validation of currently relevant effects assesses goal-achievement, screening for currently irrelevant effects accumulates knowledge about potential action-effect relationships. However, monitoring the perceptual consequences of our actions presumably impairs performance in concurrent tasks. Here, we investigated how effect relevance modulates monitoring costs by manipulating instructions in three dual-task experiments. We found performance decreases not only after validation of goal-relevant action effects but to a smaller extent also after screening of goal-irrelevant action effects. These results suggest that effect monitoring is a rather fundamental limitation of dual tasking.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

To act successfully, agents must monitor whether their behavior reached predicted effects. As deviations from predicted effects can result from own behavior (response-errors) or from circumstantial unreliability (effect-errors), both the own efferent activities and the accomplished environmental outcomes must be monitored. In three experiments, we examined response monitoring and effect monitoring using a dual-task setup. Task 1 consisted of a three-choice flanker task and effects were displayed after the response. Crucially, in some of the trials, an incorrect effect was displayed after a correct response, whereas in other trials, a correct effect was displayed after an incorrect response. This disentangled response-errors and effect-errors. Task 2 was a simple discrimination task and served to measure the monitoring process. Task 2 responses slowed down after both response-errors and effect-errors in Task 1. These influences were additive, suggesting two independent monitoring processes: one for responses, capturing errors in efferent activities, and one for response effects, checking for environment-related irregularities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Asunto(s)