These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference.
    Author: Shin YK, Proctor RW.
    Journal: Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Nov; 129(3):352-64. PubMed ID: 18845280.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]