A Gestalt account of human behavior is supported by evidence from switching between single and dual actions.

The question of how behavior is represented in the mind lies at the core of psychology as the science of mind and behavior. While a long-standing research tradition has established two opposing fundamental views of perceptual representation, Structuralism and Gestalt psychology, we test both accounts with respect to action representation: Are multiple actions (characterizing human behavior in general) represented as the sum of their component actions (Structuralist view) or holistically (Gestalt view)? Using a single-/dual-response switch paradigm, we analyzed switches between dual ([A + B]) and single ([A], [B]) responses across different effector systems and revealed comparable performance in partial repetitions and full switches of behavioral requirements (e.g., in [A + B] → [A] vs. [B] → [A], or [A] → [A + B] vs. [B] → [A + B]), but only when the presence of dimensional overlap between responses allows for Gestalt formation. This evidence for a Gestalt view of behavior in our paradigm challenges some fundamental assumptions in current (tacitly Structuralist) action control theories (in particular the idea that all actions are represented compositionally with reference to their components), provides a novel explanatory angle for understanding complex, highly synchronized human behavior (e.g., dance), and delimitates the degree to which complex behavior can be analyzed in terms of its basic components.

Brain functional characterization of response-code conflict in dual-tasking and its modulation by age.

Crosstalk between conflicting response codes contributes to interference in dual-tasking, an effect exacerbated in advanced age. Here, we investigated (i) brain activity correlates of such response-code conflicts, (ii) activity modulations by individual dual-task performance and related cognitive abilities, (iii) task-modulated connectivity within the task network, and (iv) age-related differences in all these aspects. Young and older adults underwent fMRI while responding to the pitch of tones through spatially mapped speeded button presses with one or two hands concurrently. Using opposing stimulus-response mappings between hands, we induced conflict between simultaneously activated response codes. These response-code conflicts elicited activation in key regions of the multiple-demand network. While thalamic and parietal areas of the conflict-related network were modulated by attentional, working-memory and task-switching abilities, efficient conflict resolution in dual-tasking mainly relied on increasing supplementary motor activity. Older adults showed non-compensatory hyperactivity in left superior frontal gyrus, and higher right premotor activity was modulated by working-memory capacity. Finally, connectivity between premotor or parietal seed regions and the conflict-sensitive network was neither conflict-specific nor age-sensitive. Overall, resolving dual-task response-code conflict recruited substantial parts of the multiple-demand network, whose activity and coupling, however, were only little affected by individual differences in task performance or age.

Response-code conflict in dual-task interference and its modulation by age.

Difficulties in performing two tasks at once can arise from several sources and usually increase in advanced age. Tasks with concurrent bimodal (e.g., manual and oculomotor) responding to single stimuli consistently revealed crosstalk between conflicting response codes as a relevant source. However, how this finding translates to unimodal (i.e., manual only) response settings and how it is affected by age remains open. To address this issue, we had young and older adults respond to high- or low-pitched tones with one (single task) or both hands concurrently (dual task). Responses were either compatible or incompatible with the pitch. When responses with the same level of compatibility were combined in dual-task conditions, their response codes were congruent to each other, whereas combining a compatible and an incompatible response created mutually incongruent (i.e., conflicting) response codes, potentially inducing detrimental crosstalk. Across age groups, dual-task costs indeed were overall highest with response-code incongruency. In these trials, compatible responses exhibited higher costs than incompatible ones, even after removing trials with strongly synchronized responses. This underadditive cost asymmetry argues against mutual crosstalk as the sole source of interference and corroborates notions of strategic prioritization of limited processing capacity based on mapping-selection difficulty. As expected, the effects of incongruent response codes were found to be especially deleterious in older adults, supporting assumptions of age-related deficits in multiple-action control at the level of task-shielding. Overall, our results suggest that aging is linked to higher response confusability and less efficient flexibility for capacity sharing in dual-task settings.

Response modalities and the cognitive architecture underlying action control: Intra-modal trumps cross-modal action coordination.

Performing two actions at the same time usually hampers performance. Previous studies have demonstrated a strong impact of the particular effector systems on performance in multiple action control situations. However, an open question is whether performance is generally better or worse in situations in which two actions within the same effector system are coordinated (intra-modal actions: e.g., two pedal or two manual actions) compared to situations requiring two different effector systems (cross-modal actions: e.g., a manual combined with a vocal action). Performance differences can be predicated, among others, in the light of encapsulation accounts. Encapsulation of modules on the output side of processing would suggest that actions in two different modules can be triggered simultaneously without significant interference between the actions. Thus, cross-modal actions should lead to better performance compared to intra-modal actions. We investigated this issue in two basic experiments, in which participants responded to a single stimulus (thereby maximizing control over input and central processing stages) with one or two either intra-modal or cross-modal responses (manual-manual vs. manual-oculomotor/manual-vocal in Experiment 1/2, respectively). The results represent clear evidence for a performance advantage of intra-modal over cross-modal action control across both effector system combinations and independent of the particular spatial compatibility relation between responses. The results suggest performance benefits by taking advantage of integrated, holistic representations of intra-modal action compounds.

Effects of Input Modality on Vocal Effector Prioritization in Manual-Vocal Dual Tasks.

Doing two things at once (vs. one in isolation) usually yields performance costs. Such decrements are often distributed asymmetrically between the two actions involved, reflecting different processing priorities. A previous study (Huestegge & Koch, 2013) demonstrated that the particular effector systems associated with the two actions can determine the pattern of processing priorities: Vocal responses were prioritized over manual responses, as indicated by smaller performance costs (associated with dual-action demands) for the former. However, this previous study only involved auditory stimulation (for both actions). Given that previous research on input-output modality compatibility in dual tasks suggested that pairing auditory input with vocal output represents a particularly advantageous mapping, the question arises whether the observed vocal-over-manual prioritization was merely a consequence of auditory stimulation. To resolve this issue, we conducted a manual-vocal dual task study using either only auditory or only visual stimuli for both responses. We observed vocal-over-manual prioritization in both stimulus modality conditions. This suggests that input-output modality mappings can (to some extent) attenuate, but not abolish/reverse effector-based prioritization. Taken together, effector system pairings appear to have a more substantial impact on capacity allocation policies in dual-task control than input-output modality combinations.

Two sources of task prioritization: The interplay of effector-based and task order-based capacity allocation in the PRP paradigm.

When processing of two tasks overlaps, performance is known to suffer. In the well-established psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, tasks are triggered by two stimuli with a short temporal delay (stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA), thereby allowing control of the degree of task overlap. A decrease of the SOA reliably yields longer RTs of the task associated with the second stimulus (Task 2) while performance in the other task (Task 1) remains largely unaffected. This Task 2-specific SOA effect is usually interpreted in terms of central capacity limitations. Particularly, it has been assumed that response selection in Task 2 is delayed due to the allocation of less capacity until this process has been completed in Task 1. Recently, another important factor determining task prioritization has been proposed-namely, the particular effector systems associated with tasks. Here, we study both sources of task prioritization simultaneously by systematically combining three different effector systems (pairwise combinations of oculomotor, vocal, and manual responses) in the PRP paradigm. Specifically, we asked whether task order-based task prioritization (SOA effect) is modulated as a function of Task 2 effector system. The results indicate a modulation of SOA effects when the same (oculomotor) Task 1 is combined with a vocal versus a manual Task 2. This is incompatible with the assumption that SOA effects are solely determined by Task 1 response selection duration. Instead, they support the view that dual-task processing bottlenecks are resolved by establishing a capacity allocation scheme fed by multiple input factors, including attentional weights associated with particular effector systems.

Motor sources of dual-task interference: Evidence for effector-based prioritization in dual-task control.

Dual tasking is known to yield performance costs. Corresponding research has often focused on early or central task processing stages, that is, on features related to stimulus processing or response selection. Here, we demonstrate the important role of the final (late) stage of task processing by studying effects of effector system combinations. We used pairwise combinations of tasks requiring oculomotor, manual, vocal, and pedal responses, triggered by visual/auditory stimuli. Across task combinations, we compared dual-task costs among effector systems (e.g., oculomotor, vocal, and pedal) under controlled conditions, that is, when combined with the same "context effector" (e.g., manual) in the other task. The dual-task cost pattern was strongly determined by the particular combination of effector systems in line with the assumption of an ordinal effector-based prioritization pattern (oculomotor > pedal > vocal > manual), and could not be explained by classic "first-come, first-served" accounts of central processing. Stimulus modality and its mapping to effector systems affected reaction times (RTs), but the impact on the general prioritization scheme was negligible, suggesting a more substantial influence of output (compared with input) system characteristics on dual-task capacity scheduling. The results call for a distinct effector system weighting mechanism in models of dual-task control. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Free-choice saccades and their underlying determinants: Explorations of high-level voluntary oculomotor control.

Models of eye-movement control distinguish between different control levels, ranging from automatic (bottom-up, stimulus-driven selection) and automatized (based on well-learned routines) to voluntary (top-down, goal-driven selection, e.g., based on instructions). However, one type of voluntary control has yet only been examined in the manual and not in the oculomotor domain, namely free-choice selection among arbitrary targets, that is, targets that are of equal interest from both a bottom-up and top-down processing perspective. Here, we ask which features of targets (identity- or location-related) are used to determine such oculomotor free-choice behavior. In two experiments, participants executed a saccade to one of four peripheral targets in three different choice conditions: unconstrained free choice, constrained free choice based on target identity (color), and constrained free choice based on target location. The analysis of choice frequencies revealed that unconstrained free-choice selection closely resembled constrained choice based on target location. The results suggest that free-choice oculomotor control is mainly guided by spatial (location-based) target characteristics. We explain these results by assuming that participants tend to avoid less parsimonious recoding of target-identity representations into spatial codes, the latter being a necessary prerequisite to configure oculomotor commands.

Action scheduling in multitasking: A multi-phase framework of response-order control.

Temporal organization of human behavior is particularly important when several action requirements must be processed around the same time. A crucial challenge in such multitasking situations is to control the temporal response order. However, multitasking studies usually focus on temporal processing dynamics after a specific response order - which is usually triggered by stimulus sequence and instructions - has been determined, whereas a comprehensive study of response-order scheduling mechanisms is still lacking. Across three psychological refractory period (PRP) experiments, we examined the impact of stimulus order, response characteristics, and several other factors on response order. Crucially, we utilized a combination of effector systems (oculomotor and manual) that are known to ensure reasonable response order variability in the first place. The results suggest that - contrary to previous assumptions - bottom-up factors (e.g., stimulus order) are not the primary determinant of temporal action scheduling. Instead, we found a major influence of effector-based characteristics (i.e., oculomotor task prioritization) that could be attenuated by both instructions and changes in the task environment (providing temporally predictable input). Effects of between-task compatibility suggest that a dedicated stimulus-code comparison process precedes and affects response-order scheduling. Based on the present results and previous findings, we propose a multi-phase framework of temporal response-order control that emphasizes the extent to which cognitive control of action scheduling is dynamically adaptive to particular task characteristics.

Backward crosstalk and the role of dimensional overlap within and between tasks.

In dual-task situations, which often involve some form of sequential task processing, features of Task 2 were shown to affect Task 1 performance, a phenomenon termed "backward crosstalk effect" (BCE). Most previous reports of BCEs are based on manipulations of code compatibility between tasks, while there is no clear picture whether and how mere Task 2 response selection difficulty (in the absence of cross-task dimensional code overlap, including effector system overlap) may also affect Task 1 performance. In the present study, we systematically manipulated response-response (R1-R2) relation (compatible, incompatible, arbitrary) and the stimulus-response (S-R) relation in Task 2 (S2-R2: compatible, incompatible, arbitrary; i.e., a classic manipulation of Task 2 response selection difficulty) to study the impact of dimensional overlap and compatibility within and across tasks using an integrated stimulus for both a vocal Task 1 and a manual Task 2. Results revealed a replication of a classic (spatial) R1-R2 compatibility BCE (based on code compatibility), demonstrating that our paradigm is principally suited to capture typical BCEs. Importantly, conditions involving a removal of dimensional code overlap between tasks still yielded an effect of mere Task 2 response selection difficulty on Task 1 performance. Both types of BCEs (i.e., BCEs based on code compatibility and BCEs based on Task 2 difficulty) could be assumed to be rooted in anticipation of response selection difficulty triggered by stimuli indicating either R1-R2 or S2-R2 incompatibility. The results are in line with recent theoretical claims that anticipations of response characteristics (or effects) play an important role for BCEs in particular and for conflict resolution in action control in general.

Sources of interference in cross-modal action: response selection, crosstalk, and general dual-execution costs.

Performing several actions simultaneously usually yields interference, which is commonly explained by referring to theoretical concepts such as crosstalk and structural limitations associated with response selection. While most research focuses on dual-task scenarios (involving two independent tasks), we here study the role of response selection and crosstalk for the control of cross-modal response compounds (saccades and manual responses) triggered by a single stimulus. In two experiments, participants performed single responses and spatially compatible versus incompatible dual-response compounds (crosstalk manipulation) in conditions with or without response selection requirements (i.e., responses either changed randomly between trials or were constantly repeated within a block). The results showed that substantial crosstalk effects were only present when response (compound) selection was required, not when a pre-selected response compound was merely repeated throughout a block of trials. We suggest that cross-response crosstalk operates on the level of response selection (during the activation of response codes), not on the level of response execution (when participants can rely on pre-activated response codes). Furthermore, we observed substantial residual dual-response costs even when neither response incompatibility nor response selection requirements were present. This suggests additional general dual-execution interference that occurs on a late, execution-related processing stage and even for two responses in rather distinct (manual and oculomotor) output modules. Generally, the results emphasize the importance of considering oculomotor interference in theorizing on multiple-action control.

The rhythm of cognition - Effects of an auditory beat on oculomotor control in reading and sequential scanning.

Eye-movement behavior is inherently rhythmic. Even without cognitive input, the eyes never rest, as saccades are generated 3 to 4 times per second. Based on an embodied view of cognition, we asked whether mental processing in visual cognitive tasks is also rhythmic in nature by studying the effects of an external auditory beat (rhythmic background music) on saccade generation in exemplary cognitive tasks (reading and sequential scanning). While in applied settings background music has been demonstrated to impair reading comprehension, the effect of musical tempo on eye-movement control during reading or scanning has not been investigated so far. We implemented a tempo manipulation in four steps as well as a silent baseline condition, while participants completed a text reading or a sequential scanning task that differed from each other in terms of underlying cognitive processing requirements. The results revealed that increased tempo of the musical beat sped up fixations in text reading, while the presence (vs. absence) of the auditory stimulus generally reduced overall reading time. In contrast, sequential scanning was unaffected by the auditory pacemaker. These results were supported by additionally applying Bayesian inference statistics. Our study provides evidence against a cognitive load account (i.e., that spare resources during low-demand sequential scanning allow for enhanced processing of the external beat). Instead, the data suggest an interpretation in favor of a modulation of the oculomotor saccade timer by irrelevant background music in cases involving highly automatized oculomotor control routines (here: in text reading).

Cross-modal Action Complexity: Action- and Rule-related Memory Retrieval in Dual-response Control.

Normally, we do not act within a single effector system only, but rather coordinate actions across several output modules (cross-modal action). Such cross-modal action demands can vary substantially with respect to their complexity in terms of the number of task-relevant response combinations and to-be-retrieved stimulus-response (S-R) mapping rules. In the present study, we study the impact of these two types of cross-modal action complexity on dual-response costs (i.e., performance differences between single- and dual-action demands). In Experiment 1, we combined a manual and an oculomotor task, each involving four response alternatives. Crucially, one (unconstrained) condition involved all 16 possible combinations of response alternatives, whereas a constrained condition involved only a subset of possible response combinations. The results revealed that preparing for a larger number of response combinations yielded a significant, but moderate increase in dual-response costs. In Experiment 2, we utilized one common lateralized auditory (e.g., left) stimulus to trigger incompatible response compounds (e.g., left saccade and right key press or vice versa). While one condition only involved one set of task-relevant S-R rules, another condition involved two sets of task-relevant rules (coded by stimulus type: noise/tone), while the number of task-relevant response combinations was the same in both conditions. Here, an increase in the number of to-be-retrieved S-R rules was associated with a substantial increase in dual-response costs that were also modulated on a trial-by-trial basis when switching between rules. Taken together, the results shed further light on the dependency of cross-modal action control on both action- and rule-related memory retrieval processes.