The role of response modalities in cognitive task representations

• Authors: Andrea M. Philipp , Iring Koch

Abstracts

EN

The execution of a task necessitates the use of a specific response modality. We examined the role of different response modalities by using a task-switching paradigm. In Experiment 1, subjects switched between two numerical judgments, whereas response modality (vocal vs. manual vs. foot responses) was manipulated between groups. We found judgment-shift costs in each group, that is irrespective of the response modality. In Experiment 2, subjects switched between response modalities (vocal vs. manual, vocal vs. foot, or manual vs. foot). We observed response-modality shift costs that were comparable in all groups. In sum, the experiments suggest that the response modality (combination) does not affect switching per se. Yet, modality-shift costs occur when subjects switch between response modalities. Thus, we suppose that modality-shift costs are not due to a purely motor-related mechanisms but rather emerge from a general switching process. Consequently, the response modality has to be considered as a cognitive component in models of task switching.

Keywords

EN

response modalities; cognitive control; motor control; task switching; task representation

• Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie
• Journal: Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Year: 2011
• Volume: 7
• Pages: 31-38

Contributors

author

Andrea M. Philipp

author

Iring Koch

References

• Adam, J. J., Backes, W., Rijcken, J., Hofman, P., Kuipers, H., & Jolles, J. (2003). Rapid visuomotor preparation in the human brain: A functional MRI study.Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 1-10.
• Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.),Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing(pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Arrington, C., Altmann, E., & Carr, T. (2003). Tasks of a feather flock together: Similarity effects in task switching.Memory & Cognition, 31, 781-789.
• Brass, M., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2007). How motor-related is cognitive control? In P. Haggard & Y. Rossetti (Eds.),Attention and performance XXII: Sensorimotor foundations of higher cognition(pp. 101-119). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
• Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching.Neuron, 39, 713-726.
• Derrfuss, J., Brass, M., Neumann, J., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2005). Involvement of the inferior frontal junction in cognitive control: Meta-analyses of switching and Stroop studies.Human Brain Mapping, 25, 22-34.
• Dove, A., Pollmann, S., Schubert, T., Wiggins, C. J., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2000). Prefrontal cortex activation in task switching: An event-related fMRI study.Cognitive Brain Research, 9, 103-109.
• Hübner, R., Futterer, T., & Steinhauser, M. (2001). On attentional control as a source of residual shift costs: Evidence from two-component task shifts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 640-653.
• Hunt, A. R., & Klein, R. M. (2002). Eliminating the costs of task set reconfiguration.Memory & Cognition, 30, 529-539.
• Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching: A review.Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849-874.
• Kleinsorge, T., Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (2004). Assembling a task space: Global determination of local shift costs.Psychological Research, 68, 31-40.
• Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
• Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.
• Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1325-1338.
• Philipp. A. M., & Koch, I., (2010). The integration of task-set components into cognitive task representations.Psychologica Belgica, 50, 383-411.
• Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
• Sohn, M.-H., & Anderson, J. R. (2003). Stimulus-related priming during task switching.Memory & Cognition, 31, 775-780.
• Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D'Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: An fMRI study.Psychological Research, 70, 514-525.
• Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central crosstalk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 1075-1081.
• Vandierendonck, A., Christiaens, E., & Liefooghe, B. (2008). On the representation of task information in task switching: Evidence from task and dimension switching.Memory & Cognition, 36, 1248-1261.
• Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 455-469.
• Zirngibl, C., & Koch, I. (2002). The impact of response mode on implicit and explicit sequence learning.Experimental Psychology, 49, 153-162.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10053-008-0085-1