A common explanation for processing limitations in dual-tasking is the existence of a bottleneck during response selection, meaning that the selection of responses can only occur serially for different tasks. However, a large body of data shows that features of a (secondary) Task 2 can already influence the processing of a (primary) Task 1. Such effects are referred to as backward crosstalk effects (BCEs). In the present study, two types of such BCEs were investigated: the compatibility-based BCE, which depends on the dimensional (often spatial) overlap between task features, and a BCE based on a go/no-go task in Task 2 (no-go BCE). Joining a line of research that suggests different mechanisms for these two types of BCEs, we investigated them using a mouse-tracking setup. Time continuous analyses revealed that the compatibility-based BCE triggered a spatial activation of the Task 2 response early during Task 1 processing, whereas the no-go BCE triggered an inhibitory effect in the case of a no-go Task 2, which spills over to Task 1 execution. This occurred, however, earlier in the time course than expected. The results are discussed with regard to recent models of dual-task processing.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
2.
ChengJ.González-VallejoC. (2015). Action dynamics in intertemporal choice reveal different facets of decision process. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1923
CoxonJ. P.StinearC. M.ByblowW. D. (2007). Selective inhibition of movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97(3), 2480–2489. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01284.2006
6.
DurstM.JanczykM. (2018). The motor locus of no-go backward crosstalk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(12), 1931–1946. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000565
7.
DurstM.JanczykM. (2019). Two types of backward crosstalk: Sequential modulations and evidence from the diffusion model. Acta Psychologica, 193, 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.013
8.
DurstM.UlrichR.JanczykM. (2019). To prepare or not to prepare? When preparation of a response in Task 2 induces extra performance costs in Task 1. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(2), 654–660. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01581-1
9.
EllenbogenR.MeiranN. (2008). Working memory involvement in dual-task performance: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Memory & Cognition, 36(5), 968–978. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.5.968
10.
EllenbogenR.MeiranN. (2011). Objects and events as determinants of parallel processing in dual tasks: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019958
11.
FischerR.DreisbachG. (2015). Predicting high levels of multitasking reduces between-tasks interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(6), 1482–1487. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000157
12.
FischerR.JanczykM. (2022). Dual-task performance with simple tasks. In KieselA.JohannsenL.KochI.MüllerH. (Eds.), Handbook of human multitasking (pp. 3–36). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04760-2_1
13.
FischerR.MillerJ.SchubertT. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1685–1699.
14.
FreemanJ. B.AmbadyN. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.226
15.
GiesenC.RothermundK. (2014). You better stop! Binding “stop” tags to irrelevant stimulus features. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(4), 809–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.834372
16.
HembrookeH.GayG. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940852
17.
HommelB. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384. https://doi.org/10.1037/00961523.24.5.1368
18.
HommelB.EglauB. (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66(4), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0100-y
19.
JanczykM. (2016). Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(5), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000170
20.
JanczykM.HuesteggeL. (2017). Effects of a no-go Task 2 on Task 1 performance in dual-tasking: From benefits to costs. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(3), 796–806. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1257-6
JanczykM.PfisterR.HommelB.KundeW. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001
23.
JanczykM.PfisterR.KundeW. (2013). Mice move smoothly: Irrelevant object variation affects perception, but not computer-mouse actions. Experimental Brain Research, 231, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3671-5
24.
JanczykM.PfisterR.WallmeierG.KundeW. (2014). Exceptions to the PRP effect? A comparison of prepared and unconditioned reflexes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 776–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035548
25.
JanczykM.RenasS.DurstM. (2018). Identifying the locus of compatibility-based backward crosstalk: Evidence from an extended PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000445
26.
KieslichP. J.HenningerF.WulffD. U.HaslbeckJ. M. B.Schulte-MecklenbeckM. (2019). Mouse-tracking: A practical guide to implementation and analysis. In Schulte-MecklenbeckM.KühbergerA.JohnsonJ. G. (Eds.), A handbook of process tracing methods (pp. 111–130). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315160559-9
27.
KoY.-R.MillerJ. (2014). Locus of backward crosstalk effects on Task 1 in a psychological refractory period task. Experimental Psychology, 61(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000224
28.
KochI.PoljacE.MüllerH.KieselA. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000144
29.
KoobV.DurstM.BratzkeD.UlrichR.JanczykM. (2020). S1-R2 and R1-R2 backward crosstalk both affect the central processing stage. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.5334%2Fjoc.121
30.
KoobV.UlrichR.JanczykM. (2021). Response activation and activation-transmission in response-based backward crosstalk: Analyses and simulations with an extended diffusion model. Psychological Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000326
31.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
32.
LacquanitiF.TerzuoloC.VivianiP. (1983). The law relating the kinematic and figural aspects of drawing movements. Acta Psychologica, 54(1–3), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(83)90027-6
33.
LangenbergB.JanczykM.KoobV.KlieglR.MayerA. (2022). A tutorial on using the paired t test for power calculations in repeated measures ANOVA with interactions. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01902-8
34.
LevyJ.PashlerH. (2008). Task prioritisation in multitasking during driving: Opportunity to abort a concurrent task does not insulate braking responses from dual-task slowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(4), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1378
35.
LienM.-C.ProctorR. W. (2002). Stimulus–response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 212–238. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196277
36.
LoganG. D.DelheimerJ. A. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 668–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.668
37.
LoganG. D.GordonR. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.393
38.
MahesanD.JanczykM.FischerR. (2021). Two types of between-task conflict trigger respective processing adjustments within one dual-task. Acta Psychologica, 221, Article 103450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103450
39.
MaldonadoM.DunbarE.ChemlaE. (2019). Mouse tracking as a window into decision making. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1085–1101. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01194-x
40.
MillerJ. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research, 70(6), 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0011-9
41.
MillerJ.AldertonM. (2006). Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.149
42.
MillerJ.DurstM. (2015). A comparison of the psychological refractory period and prioritized processing paradigms: Can the response selection bottleneck model explain them both?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(5), 1420–1441. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000103
43.
MillerJ.van der HamF.AndersA. F. (1995). Overlapping stage models and reaction time additivity: Effects of the activation equation. Acta Psychologica, 90, 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(95)00028-S
PfisterR.JanczykM. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.2478%2Fv10053-008-0133-x
46.
RaettigT.HuesteggeL. (2021). Representing action in terms of what not to do: Evidence for inhibitory coding during multiple action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(9), 1253–1273. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000943
ResulajA.KianiR.WolpertD. M.ShadlenM. N. (2009). Changes of mind in decision-making. Nature, 461(7261), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08275
49.
RöttgerE.HaiderH. (2017). Investigating the characteristics of “not responding”: Backward crosstalk in the PRP paradigm with forced vs. free no-go decisions. Psychological Research, 81(3), 596–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0772-3
50.
RöttgerE.JanczykM.HaiderH.FischerR. (2021). No reduction of between-task interference in a dual-task with a repeating sequence of SOAs. Acta Psychologica, 221, Article 103451. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103451
51.
RubiaK.RussellT.OvermeyerS.BrammerM. J.BullmoreE. T.SharmaT.. . .TaylorE. (2001). Mapping motor inhibition: Conjunctive brain activations across different versions of go/no-go and stop tasks. Neuroimage, 13(2), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0685
52.
ScherbaumS.DshemuchadseM. (2020). Psychometrics of the continuous mind: Measuring cognitive sub-processes via mouse tracking. Memory & Cognition, 48, 436–454. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00981-x
53.
ScherbaumS.DshemuchadseM.FischerR.GoschkeT. (2010). How decisions evolve: The temporal dynamics of action selection. Cognition, 115(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.02.004
54.
ScherbaumS.GottschalkC.DshemuchadseM.FischerR. (2015). Action dynamics in multitasking: The impact of additional task factors on the execution of the prioritized motor movement. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 934. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00934
55.
SchneiderC.BadeN.FrankeM.JanczykM. (2021). Presuppositions of determiners are immediately used to disambiguate utterance meaning: A mouse-tracking study on the German language. Psychological Research, 85, 348–1366. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00426-020-01302-7
56.
SchneiderC.SchonardC.FrankeM.JägerG.JanczykM. (2019). Pragmatic processing: An investigation of the (anti-) presuppositions of determiners using mouse-tracking. Cognition, 193, Article 104024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104024
57.
SchoemannM.O’HoraD.DaleR.ScherbaumS. (2021). Using mouse cursor tracking to investigate online cognition: Preserving methodological ingenuity while moving toward reproducible science. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(3), 766–787. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01851-3
58.
SchonardC.UlrichR.JanczykM. (2020). The Backward Crosstalk Effect does not depend on the degree of a preceding response conflict. Experimental Psychology, 67, 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000498
59.
SchubertT.FischerR.StelzelC. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 376–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.376
60.
SelenL. P.ShadlenM. N.WolpertD. M. (2012). Deliberation in the motor system: Reflex gains track evolving evidence leading to a decision. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(7), 2276–2286. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5273-11.2012
61.
SongJ. H.NakayamaK. (2009). Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(8), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.009
SpiveyM. J.GrosjeanM.KnoblichG. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(29), 10393–10398. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503903102
64.
StoneC.MattingleyJ. B.RangelovD. (2022). On second thoughts: Changes of mind in decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26, P419–P431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.02.004
65.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A.JohnstonW. A. (2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.9.1.23
66.
TelfordC. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073262
67.
ThomsonS. J.DanisL. K.WatterS. (2015). PRP training shows Task 1 response selection is the locus of the backward response compatibility effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0660-z
68.
UlrichR.SchröterH.LeutholdH.BirngruberT. (2015). Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 148–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.02.005
69.
VerbruggenF.LoganG. (2017). Control in response inhibition. In EgnerT. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (pp. 97–110). Wiley-Blackwell.
70.
WelfordA. T. (1952). The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high-speed performance—A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x
71.
WhitwellR. L.GoodaleM. A. (2013). Grasping without vision: Time normalizing grip aperture profiles yields spurious grip scaling to target size. Neuropsychologia, 51(10), 1878–1887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.06.015
72.
YamamotoN.InceraS.McLennanC. T. (2016). A reverse stroop task with mouse tracking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 670. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00670
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
