Auditory-vocal Task Research Articles

Testing the over-reliance on central attention (ORCA) hypothesis: Do older adults have difficulty automatizing especially easy tasks?

Does aging increase the reliance on central attention to carry out tasks, even when those tasks do not need it? To test the hypothesis of over-reliance on central attention (ORCA), we examined the ability of older adults to entirely bypass ideomotor-compatible (IM) tasks. IM tasks operate automatically for younger adults: The perception of an IM stimulus (e.g., a left-pointing arrow) directly activates the associated response code (e.g., pressing the left key). In a psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure, younger and older adults performed a slow auditory-vocal Task 1 paired with a fast visual-manual Task 2 that was either IM or non-IM. Task-2 compatibility (IM vs. non-IM) was manipulated as a between-subjects factor (Experiment 1) and as a within-subjects factor (Experiment 2). Both experiments yielded the counterintuitive finding of larger age differences in dual-task performance when Task 2 was easy (i.e., IM) than when it was difficult (i.e., non-IM), as evidenced by old/young ratio analyses and Brinley plots. Relatedly, whereas younger adults routinely bypassed the bottleneck with an IM Task 2 (as evidenced by a small PRP effect and a high rate of response reversals), older adults did not. The present findings cannot easily be explained by the hypotheses of generalized cognitive slowing and of specific processing deficits but support the ORCA hypothesis. As cognitive decline sets in, older adults begin to try harder: This extra application of central attention compensates for cognitive decline but can result in applying attention when it is not needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Structuralist mental representation of dual-action demands: Evidence for compositional coding from dual tasks with low cross-task dimensional overlap

The present study asks how behavioral (dual-action) demands in dual tasks are mentally represented and whether changes in representation might govern practice-related dual-task performance improvements. Three different representation accounts were empirically tested based on the idea that dual-action demands required in a dual-task trial might be represented in different ways. According to a compositional (Structuralist) account, component tasks remain structurally intact when combined with another task. In contrast, a holistic (Gestalt) account posits that dual-action requirements in dual tasks are represented holistically and entirely distinct from its component action requirements. Finally, a contextual change account assumes that a change in context (e.g., from single- to dual-action requirement) generally impedes response retrieval, similar to repeating a response while the task context switches. To address this issue, we analyzed trial-by-trial effects in a single/dual switch paradigm (SDS paradigm, involving a randomized mix of single- and dual-task trials within blocks). Specifically, we analyzed performance in an extensive dual-task training setting (involving training sessions across several days) combining an auditory-vocal task and a visual-manual task. The results indicated that, throughout practice, nearly all relevant comparisons of performance between complete switch trials (e.g., between the two single tasks) and partial repetition trials (e.g., from dual to single task) revealed partial repetition benefits, that is, for both the auditory-vocal and the visual-manual task, and for both single- and dual-task performance analyses. Therefore, dual-action requirements in the present dual-task setting are mentally represented in a compositional, Structuralist fashion, probably due to low between-task dimensional overlap.

Structuralist Mental Representation of Dual-action Demands: Mechanisms of Improved Dual-task Performance after Practice in Older Adults

ABSTRACT Aim: The present study was designed to investigate how behavioral (dual-action) demands in dual tasks are mentally represented in older adults and how these representations might contribute to the practice-related improvement of dual-task performance. Three different theoretical representation accounts were empirically tested: a structuralist account, a holistic account, and a contextual change account. The first account assumes that component tasks remain structurally intact when combined with another task while the second account assumes that dual-action requirements in dual tasks are represented holistically and entirely distinct from its component (single-action) requirements. The final account assumes that a change in context (e.g., from single to dual requirement) might generally impede response retrieval, similar to repeating a response when the task context switches. Methods: To address this issue of dual-action representations in older adults, we assessed trial-by-trial effects in a single/dual switch paradigm (involving a randomized mix of single- and dual-task trials within blocks). In detail, we re-analyzed a large set of practice data involving seven sessions, in which an auditory-vocal task was combined with a visual-manual task. Results: At the end of practice, the current results were largely consistent with the structuralist account. Conclusions: We conclude that dual-action requirements in the present dual-task setting are mentally represented in a predominantly structuralist fashion at the end of practice in older adults. The results are discussed in the context of other theories on practice-related mechanisms of improved dual-task performance in this age group.

Why Does Dual-Tasking Hamper Implicit Sequence Learning?

Research on the limitations of dual-tasking might profit from using setups with a predictable sequence of stimuli and responses and assessing the acquisition of this sequence. Detrimental effects of dual-tasking on implicit sequence learning in the serial reaction time task (SRTT; Nissen & Bullemer, 1987) – when paired with an uncorrelated task – have been attributed to participants’ lack of separating the streams of events in either task. Assuming that co-occurring events are automatically integrated, we reasoned that participants could need to first learn which events co-occur, before they can acquire sequence knowledge. In the training phase, we paired an 8-element visual-manual SRTT with an auditory-vocal task. Afterwards, we tested under single-tasking conditions whether SRTT sequence knowledge had been acquired. By applying different variants of probabilistic SRTT-tone pairings across three experiments, we tested what type of predictive relationship was needed to preserve sequence learning. In Experiment 1, where half of the SRTT-elements were paired to 100% with one specific tone and the other half randomly, only the fixedly paired elements were learned. Yet, no sequence learning was found when each of the eight SRTT-elements was paired with tone identity in a 75%–25% ratio (Experiment 2). Sequence learning was, however, intact when the 75%–25% ratio was applied to the four SRTT target locations instead (Experiment 3). The results suggest that participants (when lacking a separation of the task representations while dual-tasking) can learn a sequence inherent in one of two tasks to the extent that across-task contingencies can be learned first.

Cue the effects: Stimulus-action effect modality compatibility and dual-task costs.

The pairings of tasks' stimulus and response modalities affect the magnitude of dual-task costs. For example, dual-task costs are larger when a visual-vocal task is paired with an auditory-manual task compared with when a visual-manual task is paired with an auditory-vocal task. These results are often interpreted as reflecting increased crosstalk between central codes for each task. Here we examine a potential source: modality-based crosstalk between the stimuli and the response-induced sensory consequences (i.e., action effects). In five experiments, we manipulated experimentally induced action effects so that they were either modality-compatible or -incompatible with the stimuli. Action effects that were modality-compatible (e.g., visual stimulus, visual action effect) produced smaller dual-task costs than those that were modality-incompatible (e.g., visual stimulus, auditory action effect). Thus, the relationship between stimuli and action effects contributes to dual-task costs. Moreover, modality-compatible pairs showed an advantage compared with when no action effects were experimentally induced. These results add to a growing body of work demonstrating that postresponse sensory events affect response selection processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Effects of Non-Driving Related Task Modalities on Takeover Performance in Highly Automated Driving

Aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of different non-driving related tasks (NDR tasks) on takeover performance in highly automated driving. During highly automated driving, it is allowed to engage in NDR tasks temporarily. However, drivers must be able to take over control when reaching a system limit. There is evidence that the type of NDR task has an impact on takeover performance, but little is known about the specific task characteristics that account for performance decrements. Thirty participants drove in a simulator using a highly automated driving system. Each participant faced five critical takeover situations. Based on assumptions of Wickens's multiple resource theory, stimulus and response modalities of a prototypical NDR task were systematically manipulated. Additionally, in one experimental group, the task was locked out simultaneously with the takeover request. Task modalities had significant effects on several measures of takeover performance. A visual-manual texting task degraded performance the most, particularly when performed handheld. In contrast, takeover performance with an auditory-vocal task was comparable to a baseline without any task. Task lockout was associated with faster hands-on-wheel times but not altered brake response times. Results showed that NDR task modalities are relevant factors for takeover performance. An NDR task lockout was highly accepted by the drivers and showed moderate benefits for the first takeover reaction. Knowledge about the impact of NDR task characteristics is an enabler for adaptive takeover concepts. In addition, it might help regulators to make decisions on allowed NDR tasks during automated driving.

How conceptual overlap and modality pairings affect task-switching and mixing costs.

Manipulating the pairings of stimulus and response modalities has been shown to affect how response selection processes for distinct tasks interact. For example, Stephan and Koch (Psychol Res 75(6):491-498, 2011) found smaller performance costs when participants switched between visual-manual (VM) and auditory-vocal (AV) tasks (modality compatible; MC) compared to between visual-vocal (VV) and auditory-manual (AM) tasks (modality incompatible; MI). However, in the Stephan and Koch study, there was conceptual overlap between one set of stimuli and one set of responses. For the MC pair, these stimuli and responses belonged to the same task, whereas for the MI pair, they belonged to different tasks. To examine how conceptual overlap affected switch and mixing costs, we conducted two experiments. Experiment 1a was a near replication of Stephan and Koch in which conceptual overlap was present in the MC AV task. In contrast, Experiment 1b reduced conceptual overlap within the MC AV task and increased it in the MI VV task. In Experiment 1a, we replicated Stephan and Koch's findings: larger switch costs were observed for the MI pair; in Experiment 1b, we found numerically greater switch costs in the MC condition. In Experiment 2, we reduced conceptual overlap in both tasks and found no effect of modality compatibility on switch costs. However, mixing costs were primarily driven by modality compatibility, regardless of conceptual overlap. These results highlight the different roles that conceptual overlap and modality pairings have on switch and mixing costs.

Improved Intertask Coordination after Extensive Dual-Task Practice

This study examines whether an improved intertask coordination skill is acquired during extensive dual-task training and whether it can be transferred to a new dual-task situation. Participants practised a visual-manual task and an auditory-vocal task. These tasks were trained in two groups matched in dual-task performance measures before practice: a single-task practice group and a hybrid practice group (including single-task and dual-task practice). After practice, the single-task practice group was transferred to the same dual-task situation as that for the hybrid practice group (Experiment 1), both groups were transferred to a dual-task situation with a new visual task (Experiment 2), and both groups were transferred to a dual-task situation with a new auditory task matched in task difficulty (Experiment 3). The results show a dual-task performance advantage in the hybrid practice group over the single-task practice group in the practised dual-task situation (Experiment 1), the manipulated visual-task situation (Experiment 2), and the manipulated auditory-task situation (Experiment 3). In all experiments, the dual-task performance advantage was consistently found for the auditory task only. These findings suggest that extended dual-task practice improves the skill to coordinate two tasks, which may be defined as an accelerated switching operation between both tasks. This skill is relatively robust against changes of the component visual and auditory tasks. We discuss how the finding of task coordination could be integrated in present models of dual-task research.

Learning to bypass the central bottleneck: Declining automaticity with advancing age.

Does advancing age reduce the ability to bypass the central bottleneck through task automatization? To answer this question, the authors asked 12 older adults and 20 young adults to first learn to perform an auditory-vocal task (low vs. high pitch) in 6 single-task sessions. Their dual-task performance was then assessed with a psychological refractory period paradigm, in which the highly practiced auditory-vocal task was presented as Task 2, along with an unpracticed visual-manual Task 1. Converging evidence indicated qualitative differences in dual-task performance with age: Whereas the vast majority of young adults bypassed the bottleneck, at most 1 of the 12 older adults was able to do so. Older adults are either reluctant to bypass the bottleneck (as a matter of strategy) or have lost the ability to automatize task performance.

Mapping the pathways of information processing from sensation to action in four distinct sensorimotor tasks

Two sensorimotor tasks that share neither sensory nor motor modality can interfere with one another when they are performed simultaneously. A possible cause for this interference is the recruitment of common brain regions by these two tasks, thereby creating a bottleneck of information processing. This hypothesis predicts that such "bottleneck" regions would be activated by each task even when they are performed separately. To test this prediction, we sought to identify, with fMRI, brain regions commonly activated by sensorimotor tasks that share neither sensory input nor motor output. One group of subjects was scanned while they performed in separate runs an auditory-vocal (AVo) task and a visuo-manual (ViM) task, while a second group of subjects performed the reversed sensorimotor mapping tasks (AM and ViVo). The results revealed strong activation preferences in specific sensory and motor cortical areas for each sensory and motor modality. By contrast, the posterior portion of the lateral prefrontal cortex (pLPFC), anterior insula, and, less consistently, the anterior cingulate, presupplementary and supplementary motor areas, and subcortical areas were commonly activated across all four sensorimotor tasks. These results were observed in both blocked and event-related fMRI designs, in both 3D-group averaged and 2D-individual subject analyses, and were replicated within individuals across scanning sessions. These findings not only suggest that these brain regions serve a common amodal function in sensorimotor tasks, they also point to these regions--particularly, the pLPFC and anterior insula--as candidate neural substrates underlying a central hub of information processing in the human brain.

Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference

Previous studies have paired a visual–manual Task 1 with an auditory–vocal Task 2 to evaluate whether the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect is eliminated with two ideomotor-compatible tasks (for which stimuli resemble the response feedback). The present study varied the number of stimulus-response alternatives for Task 1 in three experiments to determine whether set-size and PRP effects were absent, as would be expected if the tasks bypass limited-capacity response-selection processes. In Experiments 1 and 2, the visual–manual task was used as Task 1, with lever-movement and keypress responses, respectively. In Experiment 3, the auditory–vocal task was used as Task 1 and the visual–manual task as Task 2. A significant lengthening of reaction time for 4 vs. 2 alternatives was found for the visual–manual Task 1 and the Task 2 PRP effect in Experiments 1 and 2, suggesting that the visual–manual task is not ideomotor compatible. Neither effect of set size was significant for the auditory–vocal Task 1 in Experiment 3, but there was still a Task 2 PRP effect. Our results imply that neither version of the visual–manual task is ideomotor compatible; other considerations suggest that the auditory–vocal task may also still require response selection.

Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment

In this research, the controversial issue of whether the central bottleneck can be bypassed through task automatization was investigated. To examine this issue, participants received six single-task practice sessions with an auditory-vocal task (low vs. high pitch). We then assessed dual-task performance using the analytically tractable psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, in which the highly practiced auditory-vocal task was presented as Task 2, along with an unpracticed visual-manual Task 1. The results provide evidence of bottleneck bypass for virtually all the participants (17 out of 20). Several converging tests suggest that the bottleneck reemerged, however, in a follow-up experiment with tasks presented in the opposite order (auditory-vocal Task 1 and visual-manual Task 2). One possible explanation is that tasks greedily recruit central resources when available, even though they can operate without central resources when unavailable.

The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference

Recent debate regarding dual-task performance has focused on whether costs result from limitations in central capacity, and whether central operations can be performed in parallel. While these questions are controversial, the dominant models of dual-task performance share the assumption that central operations are generic—that is, their interactions are independent of stimulus and response modalities. To examine these issues, we conducted a series of dual-task experiments with different input and output modality pairings. One condition combined a visual–manual task with an auditory–vocal task, and the other condition reversed the input–output pairings, combining a visual–vocal task with an auditory–manual task. Input/output modality pairings proved to be a key factor; throughout practice, dual-task costs were generally more than twice as large with visual–vocal/auditory–manual tasks than with the opposite arrangement of modalities (Experiments 1 and 2). These differences could be explained neither by competition for peripheral resources nor by differences in single-task response times (Experiment 3). Moreover, the persistent dual-task costs did not appear to stem from a central bottleneck. Contrary to the dominant models of dual-task performance, we propose that central interference between tasks depends not just on the duration of central operations, nor just strategic adaptation, but also on the content of those operations. Implications for structural and strategic accounts of dual-task interference are discussed.