Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Author(s): Huestegge, Lynn. Institute for Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, Huestegge, Lynn. Institute for Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, ; Koch, Iring. Institute for Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
  • Source:
    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol 142(3), Aug, 2013. pp. 633-637.
  • Publisher:
    US : American Psychological Association
  • Language:
    English
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Publication Type:
    Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal
  • Additional Information
    • Address:
      Huestegge, Lynn, Institute for Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstrasse 17-19, 52066, Aachen, Germany, ynn.huestegge@psych.rwth-aachen.de
    • Source:
      J Exp Psychol Gen
    • Source:
      Journal of Experimental Psychology
    • Other Publishers:
      US : Psychological Review Company
    • ISSN:
      0096-3445 (Print)
      1939-2222 (Electronic)
    • Keywords:
      attention, cognitive control, dual-task performance, resource scheduling, task sets
    • Abstract:
      Flexibility in configuring task sets allows people to adequately respond to environmental stimuli in different contexts, such as in dual-task situations. In the present study, we examined to what extent response control is influenced by the modality of a concurrently executed response. In Experiment 1, participants responded to auditory stimuli with either vocal responses and/or saccades. In Experiment 2, vocal responses were combined with manual responses. In both experiments, we found asymmetric dual-response costs, that is, the response time difference between single- and dual-response conditions varied between response modalities. It is important to note that the same (vocal) response showed substantial dual-response costs when combined with saccades (Experiment 1) but no such costs when combined with manual responses (Experiment 2). Experiment 3, combining saccades with manual responses, revealed stronger dual-response costs for manual responses than for saccades. Together, these findings suggest an ordinal dominance pattern among response modalities, representing flexible, response-based resource scheduling during task-set configuration. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
    • Subject Terms:
    • Subject Terms:
      Acoustic Stimulation; Adult; Attention; Cues; Executive Function; Female; Humans; Male; Photic Stimulation; Psychomotor Performance; Reaction Time; Saccades; Speech
    • PsycINFO Classification:
      Cognitive Processes (2340)
    • Population:
      Human
      Male
      Female
    • Methodology:
      Empirical Study; Quantitative Study
    • Physical Description:
      Electronic
    • Publication Date:
      First Posted: Oct 1, 2012; Accepted: Aug 26, 2012; Revised: Aug 24, 2012; First Submitted: Jun 5, 2012
    • Publication Date:
      20121001
    • Publication Date:
      20130729
    • Copyright:
      American Psychological Association. 2012
    • Accession Number:
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030156
    • Accession Number:
      23025562
    • Accession Number:
      xge-142-3-633
    • Accession Number:
      2012-26186-001
    • Number of Citations in Source:
      37
  • Citations
    • ABNT:
      HUESTEGGE, L.; KOCH, I. Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, [s. l.], v. 142, n. 3, p. 633–637, 2013. DOI 10.1037/a0030156. Disponível em: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pdh&AN=2012-26186-001. Acesso em: 4 dez. 2020.
    • AMA:
      Huestegge L, Koch I. Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013;142(3):633-637. doi:10.1037/a0030156
    • APA:
      Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2013). Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 633–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030156
    • Chicago/Turabian: Author-Date:
      Huestegge, Lynn, and Iring Koch. 2013. “Constraints in Task-Set Control: Modality Dominance Patterns among Effector Systems.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142 (3): 633–37. doi:10.1037/a0030156.
    • Harvard:
      Huestegge, L. and Koch, I. (2013) ‘Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), pp. 633–637. doi: 10.1037/a0030156.
    • Harvard: Australian:
      Huestegge, L & Koch, I 2013, ‘Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 142, no. 3, pp. 633–637, viewed 4 December 2020, .
    • MLA:
      Huestegge, Lynn, and Iring Koch. “Constraints in Task-Set Control: Modality Dominance Patterns among Effector Systems.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 142, no. 3, Aug. 2013, pp. 633–637. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/a0030156.
    • Chicago/Turabian: Humanities:
      Huestegge, Lynn, and Iring Koch. “Constraints in Task-Set Control: Modality Dominance Patterns among Effector Systems.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142, no. 3 (August 2013): 633–37. doi:10.1037/a0030156.
    • Vancouver/ICMJE:
      Huestegge L, Koch I. Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General [Internet]. 2013 Aug [cited 2020 Dec 4];142(3):633–7. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pdh&AN=2012-26186-001