Attention and action: The role of response mappings in auditory attention switching

References

• Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arrington, C. M., Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing procedure: Are there “true” task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 484–502. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford: Pergamon Press. doi:10.1037/10037-000
   Google Scholar
• Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979. doi:10.1121/1.1907229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Baene, W., & Brass, M. (2014). Dissociating strategy-dependent and independent components in task preparation. Neuropsychologia, 62, 331–340. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.04.015i
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Marchis, G. P. (2013). The use of key-press, voice and mouse devices in response time researches: A comparison in low conflict tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1960–1970. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, J. (2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 53–78. doi:10.1348/000712601162103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 455–472. doi:10.1037/a0020557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hugdahl, K. (2011). Fifty years of dichotic listening research – Still going and going and … Brain and Cognition, 76, 211–213. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.03.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jost, K., De Baene, W., Koch, I., & Brass, M. (2013). A review of the role of cue processing in task switching. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 221, 5–14. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. doi:10.1037/a0019842
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, I., & Lawo, V. (2014a). Exploring temporal dissipation of attention settings in auditory task switching. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 76, 73–80. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0571-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, I., & Lawo, V. (2014b). The flip side of the auditory spatial selection benefit: Larger attentional mixing costs for target selection by ear than by gender in auditory task switching. Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000274
   Google Scholar
• Koch, I., Lawo, V., Fels, J., & Vorländer, M. (2011). Switching in the cocktail party – Exploring intentional control of auditory selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1140–1147. doi:10.1037/a0022189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility – A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachter, J., Forster, K. I., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): Still no identification without attention. Psychological Review, 111, 880–913. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawo, V., Fels, J., Oberem, J., & Koch, I. (2014). Intentional attention switching in dichotic listening: Exploring the efficiency of nonspatial and spatial selection. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 2010–2024. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.898079
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawo, V., & Koch, I. (2014a). Dissociable effects of auditory attention switching and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research [Special Issue Auditory Attention], 78, 379–386. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0545-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawo, V., & Koch, I. (2014b). Examining age-related differences in auditory attention control using a task-switching procedure. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69, 237–244. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbs107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 575–599. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.575
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). The role of preparation and cue-modality in crossmodal task switching. Acta Psychologica, 134, 318–322. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 362–372. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253. doi:10.1006/cogp.2000.0736
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): A theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0136-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cueing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberem, J., Lawo, V., Koch, I., & Fels, J. (2014). Intentional switching in auditory selective attention: Exploring different binaural reproduction methods in an anechoic chamber. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 100, 1139–1148. doi:10.3813/AAA.918793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of response modalities in cognitive task representations. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 7, 31–38. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0085-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and practice. Boca-Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Rivenez, M., Guillaume, A., Bourgeon, L., & Darwin, C. J. (2008). Effect of voice characteristics on the attended and unattended processing of two concurrent messages. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 967–993. doi:10.1080/09541440701686201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, B. A., Li, L., & Daneman, M. (2007). How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 559–572. doi:10.3766/jaaa.18.7.4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 343–367. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.343
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2009). Selecting a response in task switching: Testing a model of compound cue retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 122–136. doi:10.1037/a0013744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2014). Modelling response selection in task switching: Testing the contingent encoding assumption. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1074–1095. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.843009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. (2008). Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 182–186. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohn, M.-H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 764–778. doi:10.1037/10096841151304764
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 1075–1081. doi:10.1037/a0019695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoffels, E. J., Van der Molen, M. W., & Keuss, P. G. J. (1989). An additive factor analysis of the effect(s) of location cues associated with auditory stimuli on stages of information processing. Acta Psychologica, 70, 161–197. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(89)90019-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626. doi:10.1037/a0019791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, N. L., & Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: Attention and memory in the classic selective listening procedure of Cherry (1953). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 243–262. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.3.243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar