Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-stress instructions?

On the importance of Task 1 and error performance measures in PRP dual-task studies

The psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm is a dominant research tool in the literature on dual-task performance. In this paradigm a first and second component task (i.e., Task 1 and Task 2) are presented with variable stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and priority to perform Task 1. The main indicator of dual-task impairment in PRP situations is an increasing Task 2-RT with decreasing SOAs. This impairment is typically explained with some task components being processed strictly sequentially in the context of the prominent central bottleneck theory. This assumption could implicitly suggest that processes of Task 1 are unaffected by Task 2 and bottleneck processing, i.e., decreasing SOAs do not increase reaction times (RTs) and error rates of the first task. The aim of the present review is to assess whether PRP dual-task studies included both RT and error data presentations and statistical analyses and whether studies including both data types (i.e., RTs and error rates) show data consistent with this assumption (i.e., decreasing SOAs and unaffected RTs and/or error rates in Task 1). This review demonstrates that, in contrast to RT presentations and analyses, error data is underrepresented in a substantial number of studies. Furthermore, a substantial number of studies with RT and error data showed a statistically significant impairment of Task 1 performance with decreasing SOA. Thus, these studies produced data that is not primarily consistent with the strong assumption that processes of Task 1 are unaffected by Task 2 and bottleneck processing in the context of PRP dual-task situations; this calls for a more careful report and analysis of Task 1 performance in PRP studies and for a more careful consideration of theories proposing additions to the bottleneck assumption, which are sufficiently general to explain Task 1 and Task 2 effects.

Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference

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.