Voluntary task switching is affected by modality compatibility and preparation.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-22 DOI:10.3758/s13421-024-01536-5
Erik Friedgen, Iring Koch, Edita Poljac, Baptist Liefooghe, Denise Nadine Stephan
{"title":"Voluntary task switching is affected by modality compatibility and preparation.","authors":"Erik Friedgen, Iring Koch, Edita Poljac, Baptist Liefooghe, Denise Nadine Stephan","doi":"10.3758/s13421-024-01536-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive task control can be examined in task-switching studies. Performance costs in task switches are usually smaller with compatible stimulus-response modality mappings (visual-manual and auditory-vocal) than with incompatible mappings (visual-vocal and auditory-manual). Modality compatibility describes the modality match of sensory input and of the anticipated response effect (e.g., vocal responses produce auditory effects, so that auditory stimuli are modality-compatible with vocal responses). Fintor et al. (Psychological Research, 84(2), 380-388, 2020) found that modality compatibility also biased task choice rates in voluntary task switching (VTS). In that study, in each trial participants were presented with a visual or auditory spatial stimulus and were free to choose the response modality (manual vs. vocal). In this free-choice task, participants showed a bias to create more modality-compatible than -incompatible mappings. In the present study, we assessed the generality of Fintor et al.'s (2020) findings, using verbal rather than spatial stimuli, and more complex tasks, featuring an increased number of stimulus-response alternatives. Experiment 1 replicated the task-choice bias to preferentially create modality-compatible mappings. We also found a bias to repeat the response modality just performed, and a bias to repeat entire stimulus-response modality mappings. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the response-stimulus interval (RSI) to examine whether more time for proactive cognitive control would help resolve modality-specific crosstalk in this free-choice paradigm. Long RSIs led to a decreased response-modality repetition bias and mapping repetition bias, but the modality-compatibility bias was unaffected. Together, the findings suggest that modality-specific priming of response modality influences task choice.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11315712/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01536-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cognitive task control can be examined in task-switching studies. Performance costs in task switches are usually smaller with compatible stimulus-response modality mappings (visual-manual and auditory-vocal) than with incompatible mappings (visual-vocal and auditory-manual). Modality compatibility describes the modality match of sensory input and of the anticipated response effect (e.g., vocal responses produce auditory effects, so that auditory stimuli are modality-compatible with vocal responses). Fintor et al. (Psychological Research, 84(2), 380-388, 2020) found that modality compatibility also biased task choice rates in voluntary task switching (VTS). In that study, in each trial participants were presented with a visual or auditory spatial stimulus and were free to choose the response modality (manual vs. vocal). In this free-choice task, participants showed a bias to create more modality-compatible than -incompatible mappings. In the present study, we assessed the generality of Fintor et al.'s (2020) findings, using verbal rather than spatial stimuli, and more complex tasks, featuring an increased number of stimulus-response alternatives. Experiment 1 replicated the task-choice bias to preferentially create modality-compatible mappings. We also found a bias to repeat the response modality just performed, and a bias to repeat entire stimulus-response modality mappings. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the response-stimulus interval (RSI) to examine whether more time for proactive cognitive control would help resolve modality-specific crosstalk in this free-choice paradigm. Long RSIs led to a decreased response-modality repetition bias and mapping repetition bias, but the modality-compatibility bias was unaffected. Together, the findings suggest that modality-specific priming of response modality influences task choice.

Abstract Image

自愿任务切换受模式兼容性和准备工作的影响。
认知任务控制可在任务切换研究中进行检验。与不相容的映射(视觉-声乐和听觉-手动)相比,在刺激-反应模态映射(视觉-手动和听觉-声乐)相容的情况下,任务切换的表现成本通常较低。模态兼容性描述了感觉输入和预期反应效果的模态匹配(例如,发声反应会产生听觉效果,因此听觉刺激与发声反应在模态上是兼容的)。Fintor 等人(《心理学研究》,84(2), 380-388, 2020 年)发现,在自愿任务转换(VTS)中,模式兼容性也会使任务选择率产生偏差。在该研究中,每次试验都会向参与者展示一个视觉或听觉空间刺激,参与者可以自由选择反应模式(手动或发声)。在这项自由选择任务中,参与者表现出更多的模式兼容映射,而不是模式不兼容映射。在本研究中,我们评估了 Fintor 等人(2020 年)研究结果的普遍性,使用的是语言刺激而非空间刺激,任务也更加复杂,刺激-反应选择的数量也有所增加。实验 1 复制了任务选择偏向于优先创建模式兼容映射。我们还发现了一种重复刚刚完成的反应模式的偏向,以及一种重复整个刺激-反应模式映射的偏向。在实验 2 中,我们操纵了反应-刺激间隔(RSI),以检验在这种自由选择范式中,更多的主动认知控制时间是否有助于解决特定模态的串扰问题。较长的反应刺激间隔导致反应模式重复偏差和映射重复偏差降低,但模式兼容性偏差未受影响。这些发现共同表明,特定模式的反应模式引物会影响任务选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信