Determinants of the benefit for consistent stimulus-response mappings in dual-task performance of four-choice tasks

Reaction times are shorter when the stimulus-response mappings for pairs of three-choice tasks are consistent (both corresponding or both mirrored) than when they are inconsistent. The benefit for consistent mirrored mappings is evident at the side positions for each task, for which the responses are crossed, but not at the middle position, for which the response is corresponding. In the present study, we report experiments in which we tested implications of an emergent mapping-choice account of the consistency benefit using pairs of four-choice tasks. This procedure allows crossed responses for all positions when the mapping is mirrored and use of mixed mappings for which one pair of stimuli and responses within a task has a corresponding assignment and the other a crossed assignment. Results showed that when a pure corresponding or pure mirrored mapping was used, there was a consistency benefit for both the middle and side positions. However, when the mixed mapping was introduced, the consistency benefit for that mapping depended on the overall complexity of the set of individual stimulus-response pairings for the combined tasks. A mapping choice between Tasks 1 and 2 is only one of several emergent processes that contribute to response-selection efficiency in dual-task contexts.