To prepare or not to prepare? When preparation of a response in Task 2 induces extra performance costs in Task 1.
Backward crosstalk
Dual task
Go/no-go task
Response preparation
Journal
Psychonomic bulletin & review
ISSN: 1531-5320
Titre abrégé: Psychon Bull Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9502924
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
20
3
2019
medline:
26
7
2019
entrez:
20
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In dual tasking, the no-go backward crosstalk effect (BCE) means that processing of Task 1 takes longer when Task 2 does not require a response (no-go trial) than when it requires a response (go trial). Thus, contrary to the usual observation, giving two successive responses counterintuitively reduces instead of increases performance costs for Task 1. Results from recent studies are in line with the notion that the no-go BCE reflects response inhibition, which is required to overcome an already prepared go response in Task 2, but which also spills over to motor execution in Task 1. No direct test of this hypothesis, however, has been carried out so far, and hence the present study was designed to fill this gap. The result of this study with n = 48 participants revealed that a no-go Task 2 impeded Task 1 performance when preparation of the Task 2 response was encouraged, but facilitated Task 1 performance when preparation of the Task 2 response was not encouraged.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30887448
doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01581-1
pii: 10.3758/s13423-019-01581-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
654-660Subventions
Organisme : Priority Program 1772 ?Human performance under multiple cognitive task requirements: From basic mechanisms to optimized task scheduling?
ID : UL116/15-1
Organisme : Priority Program 1772 ?Human performance under multiple cognitive task requirements: From basic mechanisms to optimized task scheduling?
ID : JA2307/6-1
Références
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Jun;26(3):1072-90
pubmed: 10884010
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Aug;26(4):1260-80
pubmed: 10946714
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 May;27(3):668-85
pubmed: 11394673
Psychol Res. 2006 Nov;70(6):484-93
pubmed: 16237555
Mem Cognit. 2005 Jul;33(5):913-26
pubmed: 16383178
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Feb;32(1):149-65
pubmed: 16478333
Percept Psychophys. 2006 Feb;68(2):254-77
pubmed: 16773898
Cogn Psychol. 2008 Sep;57(2):75-121
pubmed: 18262510
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Apr;34(2):376-97
pubmed: 18377177
Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Jun;16(3):542-9
pubmed: 19451382
Psychol Res. 2010 Jul;74(4):378-87
pubmed: 19855997
Adv Cogn Psychol. 2013 Jun 17;9(2):74-80
pubmed: 23826038
Exp Psychol. 2014 Jan 01;61(1):30-7
pubmed: 23948390
J Neurosci. 2013 Nov 20;33(47):18481-91
pubmed: 24259571
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 May;40(3):776-86
pubmed: 24417329
Cognition. 2014 Jul;132(1):30-43
pubmed: 24747873
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014 Nov;76(8):2560-74
pubmed: 25078634
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Sep;151:230-6
pubmed: 25086224
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015 Oct;41(5):1420-41
pubmed: 26168143
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016 May;42(5):631-47
pubmed: 26594880
Psychol Res. 2017 May;81(3):596-610
pubmed: 27114381
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2016 Jul;168:27-40
pubmed: 27155317
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017 Apr;79(3):796-806
pubmed: 28028775
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Feb;44(2):261-276
pubmed: 28557494
Psychol Res. 2018 Sep;82(5):970-980
pubmed: 28620805
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Dec;44(12):1931-1946
pubmed: 29683705
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2018 Jun 19;188:139-147
pubmed: 29933176
Behav Res Methods. 2019 Feb;51(1):40-60
pubmed: 30022459
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2018 Oct;80(7):1660-1666
pubmed: 30069681
Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Sep;22(9):741-744
pubmed: 30122169
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019 Feb;193:132-152
pubmed: 30639985
Acta Psychol (Amst). 1969;30:412-31
pubmed: 5811531
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Oct;24(5):1368-84
pubmed: 9988597