Slower than manual responses, nevertheless associated with smaller performance Overall response time levels of the effector systems (e.g., vocal responses were Interestingly, this pattern could not be explained in terms of the Oculomotor (but not with manual) responses. Single- and dual-response conditions for each effector system) revealed anĪsymmetrical distribution of these costs throughout all pairwise combinations ofĮffector systems: Oculomotor responses were associated with smaller costs than vocalĪnd manual responses, while vocal costs were only large when combined with Of the pattern of performance costs (i.e., response time difference between Vocal or manual response, or with two of these responses simultaneously. They had participants respond to a singleĪuditory stimulus (presented to the left/right ear) with either a single oculomotor, Multiple-action control was conducted by Huestegge and Koch (2013).
Multiple-action (or dual-task) control has largely been disregarded in previousĪ study that explicitly focused on the impact of effector system combinations on However, the impact of (combinations of) effector systems on
Restrictions can be helpful to ensure a highly controlled experimental situation,Įveryday life often confronts us with challenges requiring the coordination ofĭifferent effector systems simultaneously (cross-modal action see Huestegge & Hazeltine, 2011 Ģ014). Restricted range of effector systems (mostly manual key presses see, e.g., Pashler, 1994). Typical experiments in multitasking research often focus on tasks involving a rather Substantial impact on capacity allocation policies in dual-task control than Taken together, effector system pairings appear to have a more Mappings can (to some extent) attenuate, but not abolish/reverse effector-based We observed vocal-over-manual prioritization in both Manual–vocal dual task study using either only auditory or only visual Whether the observed vocal-over-manual prioritization was merely a consequence Output represents a particularly advantageous mapping, the question arises Given that previous research on input–output modalityĬompatibility in dual tasks suggested that pairing auditory input with vocal However, this previous study only involved auditory stimulation Processing priorities: Vocal responses were prioritized over manual responses,Īs indicated by smaller performance costs (associated with dual-action demands)įor the former. Previous study (Huestegge & Koch, 2013) demonstrated that the particularĮffector systems associated with the two actions can determine the pattern of Such decrements are often distributed asymmetricallyīetween the two actions involved, reflecting different processing priorities.
0 kommentar(er)
