Task-order control in dual-tasks: Only marginal interactions between conflict at lower levels and higher processes of task organization

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY
Valentin Koob, David Dignath, Markus Janczyk
{"title":"Task-order control in dual-tasks: Only\n marginal interactions between conflict at lower levels and higher processes of task\n organization","authors":"Valentin Koob,&nbsp;David Dignath,&nbsp;Markus Janczyk","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02876-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>When simultaneously performing two tasks that share response properties,\n interference can occur. Besides general performance decrements, performance in the\n first task is worse when the second task requires a spatially incompatible response,\n known as the backward crosstalk effect (BCE). The size of this BCE, similar to\n congruency effects in conflict tasks, is subject to a sequential modulation, with a\n smaller BCE after incompatible compared to compatible trials. In the present study,\n we focus on a potential bidirectional interaction between crosstalk (and its\n resolution) at a lower level of task performance and higher-order processes of task\n organization. Two questions were of particular interest: First, do participants\n switch task order more frequently after a conflict-prone incompatible trial than\n after a compatible trial? Second, does changing task order influence the efficiency\n of conflict resolution, as indexed by the size of the sequential modulation of the\n BCE. Across four experiments, we only found marginal evidence for an influence of\n lower-level conflict on higher-order processes of task organization, with only one\n experiment revealing a tendency to repeat task order following conflict. Our results\n thus suggest practical independence between conflict and task-order control. When\n separating processes of task selection and task performance, the sequential\n modulation was generally diminished, suggesting that conflict resolution in\n dual-tasks can be disrupted by a deliberate decision about task order, or,\n alternatively, by a longer inter-trial interval. Finally, the study found a strong\n bias towards repeating the same task order across trials, suggesting that task-order\n sets not only impact task performance but also guide task selection.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13414-024-02876-9.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02876-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When simultaneously performing two tasks that share response properties, interference can occur. Besides general performance decrements, performance in the first task is worse when the second task requires a spatially incompatible response, known as the backward crosstalk effect (BCE). The size of this BCE, similar to congruency effects in conflict tasks, is subject to a sequential modulation, with a smaller BCE after incompatible compared to compatible trials. In the present study, we focus on a potential bidirectional interaction between crosstalk (and its resolution) at a lower level of task performance and higher-order processes of task organization. Two questions were of particular interest: First, do participants switch task order more frequently after a conflict-prone incompatible trial than after a compatible trial? Second, does changing task order influence the efficiency of conflict resolution, as indexed by the size of the sequential modulation of the BCE. Across four experiments, we only found marginal evidence for an influence of lower-level conflict on higher-order processes of task organization, with only one experiment revealing a tendency to repeat task order following conflict. Our results thus suggest practical independence between conflict and task-order control. When separating processes of task selection and task performance, the sequential modulation was generally diminished, suggesting that conflict resolution in dual-tasks can be disrupted by a deliberate decision about task order, or, alternatively, by a longer inter-trial interval. Finally, the study found a strong bias towards repeating the same task order across trials, suggesting that task-order sets not only impact task performance but also guide task selection.

Abstract Image

双重任务中的任务顺序控制:较低层次的冲突与较高层次的任务组织过程之间只有微弱的相互作用。
当同时执行两项具有相同反应特性的任务时,可能会出现干扰。除了一般的成绩下降之外,当第二项任务需要空间上不相容的反应时,第一项任务的成绩也会下降,这就是所谓的后向串扰效应(BCE)。这种 BCE 的大小与冲突任务中的一致性效应类似,受顺序调节的影响,不相容试验后的 BCE 小于相容试验后的 BCE。在本研究中,我们将重点放在任务表现低层次的串扰(及其解决)与任务组织的高阶过程之间潜在的双向互动上。我们特别关注两个问题:首先,与相容试验相比,参与者是否在容易发生冲突的不相容试验后更频繁地转换任务顺序?其次,改变任务顺序是否会影响冲突解决的效率(以 BCE 的顺序调制大小为指标)。在四项实验中,我们只发现了低层次冲突对高阶任务组织过程产生影响的边际证据,只有一项实验揭示了冲突后重复任务顺序的倾向。因此,我们的结果表明冲突和任务顺序控制之间实际上是独立的。当把任务选择过程和任务执行过程分开时,顺序调节作用普遍减弱,这表明在双重任务中,冲突的解决可能会被任务顺序的有意决定所干扰,或者被较长的试验间隔所干扰。最后,研究发现,在试验中重复相同任务顺序的倾向性很强,这表明任务顺序集不仅会影响任务表现,还会指导任务选择。
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
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
197
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.
×
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