Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck.

Eliot Hazeltine1, Eric Ruthruff

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, 11 Seashore Hall E, Iowa City, IA 52242-1407, USA. eliot-hazeltine@uiowa.edu

Psychological Research
|September 10, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Automaticity of Word Recognition is a Unique Predictor of Reading Fluency in Middle-School Students.

Journal of educational psychology·2026
Same author

Global functional connectivity of cognitive control networks predicts task-switching performance in older adults.

Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior·2026
Same author

Neural traces of composite tasks in complex task representation in the human brain reflects learning performance.

PLoS biology·2026
Same author

Attention bias for facial expressions of emotion: A meta-analytic review.

Psychological bulletin·2025
Same author

Does the attentional window shed light on the attentional capture debate?

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2025
Same author

When boosting preparation sets older adults free from central bottlenecking: Evidence for dual-task automaticity.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2025
Same journal

The effect of retrieval practice on incidental memory is modulated by emotional valence: evidence of ERPs.

Psychological research·2026
Same journal

The length of a piece of string: Where the whole is more than the sum of its constituent parts.

Psychological research·2026
Same journal

The influence of older age, individual differences in cognitive abilities, and state of mind on learning novel categories.

Psychological research·2026
Same journal

Effects of transcranial electrical stimulation on face identification and related perceptual processes: a systematic review.

Psychological research·2026
Same journal

Context-dependent motor-semantic interactions: evidence from dual-task paradigms in semantic fluency.

Psychological research·2026
Same journal

A dual-process account of metaphorical embodiment.

Psychological research·2026
See all related articles

Input/output modality pairings significantly impact dual-task performance, affecting reaction times more than single-task times. This suggests dual-task interference is influenced by modality pairings beyond simple task postponement.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Human Performance
  • Experimental Psychology

Background:

  • Dual-task performance is often explained by a central bottleneck model, suggesting tasks are processed sequentially.
  • The psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure is a standard method for investigating dual-task interference.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how different input/output modality pairings affect performance in a dual-task scenario.
  • To determine if modality pairings influence the nature or extent of dual-task interference.

Main Methods:

  • Participants completed tasks using the psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure.
  • Four groups were assigned different input (visual, auditory) and output (manual, vocal) modality pairings.
  • Single-task and dual-task reaction times were measured.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Modality pairings had minimal impact on single-task reaction times.
  • Significant effects of modality pairings were observed on dual-task reaction times.
  • These effects were independent of stimulus classification, response execution difficulty, and stimulus-response compatibility.

Conclusions:

  • Dual-task interference is not solely due to the postponement of central operations (central bottleneck).
  • The magnitude of dual-task interference is sensitive to the specific input/output modality pairings used.
  • Modality pairings can slow down central operations, contributing to dual-task interference.