Abstract
AbstractRecent multiple action control studies have demonstrated difficulties with single-action (vs. dual-action) execution when accompanied by the requirement to inhibit a prepotent additional response (e.g., a highly automatic eye movement). Such a dual-action performance benefit is typically characterized by frequent false-positive executions of the currently unwarranted response. Here, we investigated whether the frequency of false-positive saccades is affected by the ease of translating a stimulus into a spatial oculomotor response (S-R translation ease): Is it harder to inhibit a saccade that is more automatically triggered via the stimulus? Participants switched on a trial-by-trial basis between executing a single saccade, a single manual button press, and a saccadic-manual dual action in response to a single visual stimulus. Importantly, we employed three different stimulus modes that varied in oculomotor S-R translation ease (peripheral square > central arrow > central shape). The hierarchy of S-R translation ease was reflected by increasing saccade and manual reaction times. Critically, however, the frequency of false-positive saccades in single manual trials was not substantially affected by the stimulus mode. Our results rule out explanations related to limited capacity sharing (between inhibitory control and S-R translation demands) as well as accounts related to the time available for the completion of saccade inhibition. Instead, the findings suggest that the erroneous co-activation of the oculomotor system was elicited by the mere execution of a (frequently associated) manual response (action-based co-activation).
Funder
Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference63 articles.
1. Aust, F., & Barth, M. (2022). papaja: Prepare reproducible APA journal articles with R Markdown (Version 0.2.0) [Computer software]. https://github.com/crsh/papaja (Original work published 2014).
2. Battaglia-Mayer, A., Archambault, P. S., & Caminiti, R. (2006). The cortical network for eye-hand coordination and its relevance to understanding motor disorders of parietal patients. Neuropsychologia, 44(13), 2607–2620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.11.021.
3. Bompas, A., Campbell, A. E., & Sumner, P. (2020). Cognitive control and automatic interference in mind and brain: A unified model of saccadic inhibition and countermanding. Psychological Review, 127(4), 524–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000181.
4. Bratzke, D., Ulrich, R., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., Jentzsch, I., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 61(9), 1385–1399. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701536856.
5. Bratzke, D., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2009). The source of execution-related dual-task interference: Motor bottleneck or response monitoring? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1413–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015874.