Evidence against stimulus-effect priming as the source of modality pairing effects in task-switching

Schacherer, Jonathan; Hazeltine, Eliot · 2023 · Research Square

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3232180/v1

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the mechanism underlying modality pairing effects in task-switching, specifically adjudicating between two competing accounts: stimulus-effect (SE) priming and central crosstalk. Task-switching costs are known to vary based on how stimulus and response modalities are paired; for instance, switching between visual-manual and auditory-vocal tasks incurs lower costs than switching between visual-vocal and auditory-manual tasks. While these effects are attributed to "crosstalk" or interference between overlapping codes, the precise nature of this interference remains debated. The SE priming account posits that stimuli prime compatible action effects (or vice versa), facilitating performance when modalities align within a task but causing interference when they align across tasks. Conversely, the central crosstalk account suggests that interference arises from the integration of all task-relevant features (stimuli, responses, and effects) into central operations, where overlapping representations between tasks cause conflict regardless of direction. To distinguish between these accounts, Schacherer and Hazeltine conducted four experiments manipulating the compatibility between stimulus modalities and experimentally induced action effects, while holding response modality constant (manual responses). Experiment 1 conceptually replicated prior findings by demonstrating that switch costs were reduced when stimuli and effects were modality-compatible within tasks (e.g., visual stimulus–visual effect) compared to when they were incompatible (e.g., visual stimulus–auditory effect). Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3 were designed to test for asymmetrical switch costs, which would support SE priming. In these experiments, tasks overlapped in stimulus modalities, effect modalities, both, or neither. If SE priming were the driver, switching from a task with a modality-compatible stimulus to one with an incompatible effect should yield different costs than the reverse switch, due to directional priming biases. The results provided evidence against the SE priming account. In Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3, switch costs were symmetrical across tasks, showing no significant interaction between task direction and condition. This symmetry indicates that the magnitude of interference did not depend on whether a stimulus primed a compatible effect in the current or competing task. Instead, the findings support the central crosstalk account, suggesting that modality pairing effects stem from interference between representations engaged by central operations. When tasks share similar stimulus or effect codes, these codes interfere with one another during central processing, increasing switch costs regardless of the specific sequence of tasks. These results clarify that the relationship between stimuli and response-related action effects influences response selection through central integration rather than peripheral priming mechanisms.

Key finding

Symmetrical switch costs across tasks provide evidence against stimulus-effect priming and support the hypothesis that modality pairing effects in task-switching result from interference between central operations.

Methodology

lab_experiment

Sample size: 144

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via author_sweep_intake on 2026-05-28.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• task switching