Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Hand Proximity Effect on Task Switching Performance Through Cue Modality

손 근접성이 단서양상에 따라 과제전환 수행에 미치는 효과

  • Received : 2018.03.29
  • Accepted : 2018.05.30
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The present study examined how processing features of visual information near the hand would affect task switching. Recent studies reported enhanced cognitive control of visual information presented the near hands. To investigate the enhancement of cognitive control based on the relationship between hand proximity and attention, we implemented 2 experiments. In the task switching performance experiment, the hand proximity effect depended on modality of cue and target. The first experiment showed that stimuli near the hand received greater cognitive control than stimuli far from the hand, resulting in smaller switch cost. The result could rule out the feature-binding problem, which identifies reduced switch cost as the cause instead of hand proximity. Our results show that hand proximity actually reduced switch cost. In the second experiment, we examined the effects of hand nearness, modality, and their interaction on switch cost. In task switching, the target was always visual, and the cue was presented either visually or auditorily. In addition, we manipulated the cue-target interval to observe the preparation effect of cue. The results showed that a visual cue near the hand reduced switch cost by shortening task preparation time. Also, modality switching between an auditory cue and visual target was remarkable in a hand-near condition. The results for the visual cue could be interpreted as a benefit of rapid visual attention orienting. On the other hand, the results for the auditory cue could be interpreted as the cost of interference of modality switching by slower attentional disengagement of stimuli near the hands. Finally, modulation of switch cost by attention induced by hand nearness was discussed.

본 연구는 손과 가까운 시각 정보의 처리적 특성이 과제전환에 미치는 영향을 살펴보기 위해 수행되었다. 최근 연구들은 손과 가깝게 제시된 정보에 대한 인지통제가 향상됨을 보고하고 있다. 이러한 인지통제 향상효과를 손 근접성과 주의의 관계를 통해 규명하고자 두 번의 실험을 실시하였다. 그 결과 과제전환 수행에서 단서와 목표자극의 감각양상에 따라 손 근접성의 효과가 달라짐을 관찰할 수 있었다. 첫 번째 실험에서 손에 근접한 자극에 대한 전환비용의 감소가 관찰되었다. 선행 연구들에서 전환비용의 감소원인으로 지목되었던 특징결합 문제를 제외시켰을 경우에도 동일한 결과가 관찰되었다. 즉, 손 근접성이 전환비용을 감소시켰음을 검증할 수 있었다. 두 번째 실험에서는 손 근접성과 감각양상의 상호작용이 전환비용에 미치는 영향을 살펴보기 위해 수행되었다. 과제전환에서 목표자극은 시각으로 단서는 시각 또는 청각으로 제시하였고, 단서의 준비성 효과를 관찰하기 위해 단서-목표자극 간격을 조변하였다. 연구 결과 손에 근접한 시각 단서는 과제 준비 시간을 단축시켜 전환비용을 감소시켰으나, 청각 단서의 경우 손에 근접할 때 오히려 과제 준비 시간이 더 오래 걸렸다. 시각 단서의 결과는 손에 근접한 시각 정보에 대한 신속한 주의정향으로 인한 이득으로 설명될 수 있다. 반면에 청각 단서에서 나타난 손실은 청각 단서와 시각 자극 간의 감각 간 전환이 손 근접성의 주의 범위 고정 효과로 인해 방해된 결과로 해석될 수 있다. 마지막으로 손 근접성의 주의효과로 인해 달라지는 전환비용에 대해 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035-1047. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.006
  2. Arbuthnott, K. D., & Woodward, T. S. (2002). The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 56(1), 18-29. DOI: 10.1037/h0087382
  3. Awh, E., Matsukura, M., & Serences, J. T. (2003). Top-down control over biased competition during covert spatial orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 52-63. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.52
  4. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
  5. Boulter, L. R. (1977). Attention and reaction times to signals of uncertain modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(3), 379-388. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.3.3.379
  6. Bush, W. S., & Vecera, S. P. (2014). Differential effect of one versus two hands on visual processing. Cognition, 133(1), 232-237. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.014
  7. Bush, W. S., & Vecera, S. P. (2016). Hand position biases processing toward task irrelevant flankers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 151-157. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000104
  8. Cepeda, N. J., Cepeda, M. L., & Kramer, A. F. (2000). Task switching and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28(3), 213-226. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005143419092
  9. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97(3), 332-361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332
  10. Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Montana, J., Garverick, S., & Abrams, R. A. (2010). When meaning matters, look but don't touch: The effects of posture on reading. Memory & Cognition, 38(5), 555-562. DOI: 10.3758/MC.38.5.555
  11. Dufour, A., & Touzalin, P. (2008). Improved visual sensitivity in the perihand space. Experimental Brain Research, 190(1), 91-98. DOI: 10.3758/MC.38.5.555
  12. Englert, J., & Wentura, D. (2016). Hand posture and cognitive control: The congruency sequence effect is reduced near the hands. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1582-1588. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1000-2
  13. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
  14. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2014). Cue type affects preparatory influences on task inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 148, 12-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.12.009
  15. Gozli, D. G., Ardron, J., & Pratt, J. (2014). Reduced visual feature binding in the near-hand space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(5), 1308-1317. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0673-8
  16. Hughes, M. M., Linck, J. A., Bowles, A. R., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Alternatives to switchcost scoring in the task-switching paradigm: Their reliability and increased validity. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 702-721. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-013-0411-5
  17. Jost, K., De Baene, W., Koch, I., & Brass, M. (2013). A review of the role of cue processing in task switching. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 221(1), 5-14. DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000125
  18. Liepelt, R., & Fischer, R. (2016). Task demands determine hand posture bias on conflict processing in a Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(2), 579-586. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0901-9
  19. Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 832-840. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196709
  20. Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 347-363. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.347
  21. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1423-1442. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1423
  22. Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in taskswitching. Psychological Research, 63(3-4), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004269900004
  23. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134-140. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7
  24. Pettigrew, C., & Martin, R. C. (2016). The role of working memory capacity and interference resolution mechanisms in task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(12), 2431-2451. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1121282
  25. Posner, M. I., & DiGirolamo, G. J. (1998). Conflict, target detection and cognitive control. The Attentive Brain, 401-423.
  26. Post, L. J., & Chapman, C. E. (1991). The effects of cross-modal manipulations of attention on the detection of vibrotactile stimuli in humans. Somatosensory & Motor Research, 8(2), 149-157. DOI: 10.3109/08990229109144739
  27. 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. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.166
  28. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207-231. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207
  29. Slama, H., Deliens, G., Schmitz, R., Peigneux, P., & Leproult, R. (2015). Afternoon nap and bright light exposure improve cognitive flexibility post lunch. PloS One, 10(5), e0125359. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125359
  30. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174-176. DOI: 10.1037/h0027448
  31. Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1997). Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial orienting. Perception & Psychophysics, 59(1), 1-22. DOI: 10.3758/BF03206843
  32. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.15
  33. Thomas, T., & Sunny, M. M. (2017). Slower attentional disengagement but faster perceptual processing near the hand. Acta Psychologica, 174, 40-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.01.005
  34. Tseng, P., Yu, J., Tzeng, O. J., Hung, D. L., & Juan, C. H. (2014). Hand proximity facilitates spatial discrimination of auditory tones. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 527. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00527
  35. Turatto, M., Benso, F., Galfano, G., & Umilta, C. (2002). Nonspatial attentional shifts between audition and vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 628. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.28.3.628
  36. Turatto, M., Galfano, G., Bridgeman, B., & Umilta, C. (2004). Space-independent modality-driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems. Experimental Brain Research, 155(3), 301-310. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1724-x
  37. Weidler, B. J., & Abrams, R. A. (2014). Enhanced cognitive control near the hands. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 462-469. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0514-0