Embodied cognition in multitasking: increased hand-specific task shielding when stimuli are presented near the hand
The proximity of hand position alters the processing of visual stimuli. Stimuli presented close (proximal) to hands receive an enhanced allocation of visual attention compared to stimuli presented far (distal) from hands. In the present dual-task study we studied the consequences of this preferential processing when the stimulus for Task 1 (S1) and the stimulus for Task 2 (S2) were presented together and were assigned to specific response hands (R1 and R2) located proximal (at the monitor) versus distal (in the lap) to the stimuli. In two experiments, we tested whether stimulus–hand proximity affected the extent of between-task interference (i.e., influence of additional Task 2 processing on primary Task 1 processing). In Experiment 1, results showed that stimulus–hand proximity reduced the amount of between-task interference compared to the distal stimulus–hand condition. Extending these findings, in Experiment 2 a further reduction of between-task interference was obtained when a single hand was located at the monitor instead of two hands. These results are inconsistent with the assumption of a generally increased attentional processing benefit for multiple stimuli within hand space. Instead, these findings speak for a hand-specific processing benefit that supports more separate processing of two tasks. Together these findings demonstrate that stimulus–hand proximity affects the quality of multiple task performance, which is discussed in the context of both, basic and applied cognitive research.
We thank Robert Görsch, Sophia Hammer, and Isabelle Althaus for assistance in data collection and Kimberly Halvorson for valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was supported by grants within the Priority Program SPP 1772 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) grant no FI 1624/3-1 and LI 2115/2-1 awarded to both authors.
This study was funded by grants within the Priority Program, SPP 1772 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), grant no FI 1624/3-1 awarded to R.F. and LI 2115/2-1 awarded to R.L.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human and animal participants
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in the study.
- Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., 3rd, & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035–1047.Google Scholar
- Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.Google Scholar
- Davoli, C. C., & Abrams, R. A. (2009). Reaching out with the imagination. Psychological Science, 20(3), 293–295.Google Scholar
- Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007). Controlling attention through action: observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3351–3355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.012.Google Scholar
- Feng, S. F., Schwemmer, M., Gershman, S. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2014). Multitasking versus multiplexing: Toward a normative account of limitations in the simultaneous execution of control-demanding behaviors. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0236-9.Google Scholar
- Fischer, R., Miller, J., & Schubert, T. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1685–1699.Google Scholar
- Garza, J. P., Strom, M. J., Wright, C. E., Roberts, R. J., Jr., & Reed, C. L. (2013). Top-down influences mediate hand bias in spatial attention. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 75(5), 819–823.Google Scholar
- Graziano, M. S., & Gross, C. G. (1995). From eye to hand. In J. King & K. H. Pribram (Eds.), Scale in conscious experience: Is the brain too important to be left to specialists to study? (pp. 117–129). Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Graziano, M. S., Yap, G. S., & Gross, C. G. (1994). Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. Science, 266(5187), 1054–1057.Google Scholar
- Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384.Google Scholar
- Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. (discussion 878-937).Google Scholar
- Hosang, T. J., Fischer, R., Pomp, J., & Liepelt, R. (2018). Multitasking in the near-hand space: Effects of stimulus–hand proximity on between-task shifts at the bottleneck. Frontiers in Psychology.Google Scholar
- Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport, 7(14), 2325–2330.Google Scholar
- Lakens, D., Schneider, I. K., Jostmann, N. B., & Schubert, T. W. (2011). Telling things apart: The distance between response keys influences categorization times. Psychological Science, 22(7), 887–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976114123910956797611412391.Google Scholar
- Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 212–238.Google Scholar
- Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434.Google Scholar
- Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1072–1090.Google Scholar
- Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86.Google Scholar
- Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3–65.Google Scholar
- Miller, J., & Reynolds, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(6), 1126–1142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15184.108.40.20662003-09958-003.Google Scholar
- Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 435–448.Google Scholar
- Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44(3), 193–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0767S0010028501907674.Google Scholar
- Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2012). Better not to deal with two tasks at the same time when stressed? Acute psychosocial stress reduces task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(3), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0098-6.Google Scholar
- Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches. Springer: New York.Google Scholar
- Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., & Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: Attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 166–177.Google Scholar
- Stelzel, C., & Schubert, T. (2011). Interference effects of stimulus-response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness. Psychological Research, 75(6), 476–490.Google Scholar
- Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1075–1081.Google Scholar
- Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.Google Scholar