ArticlePsychological research2020
Modality compatibility biases voluntary choice of response modality in task switching.
Article in Psychological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The benefit of choice on task performance: Reduced difficulty effects in free-choice versus forced-choice tasks.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Voluntary task switching is affected by modality compatibility and preparation.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Reactive and proactive control processes in voluntary task choice.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Dissociating stimulus-response compatibility and modality compatibility in task switching.Memory & cognition · 2022Article
- Are some effector systems harder to switch to? In search of cost asymmetries when switching between manual, vocal, and oculomotor tasks.Memory & cognition · 2022Article
- Modality compatibility in task switching depends on processing codes and task demands.Psychological research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The term modality compatibility refers to the similarity between stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences (e.g., vocal responses produce auditory effects). The previous results showed smaller task-switching costs when participants switched between modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) compared to switching between modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal). In the present study using a voluntary task-switching paradigm (VTS), participants chose the response modality (vocal or manual) to indicate the location of either a visual or an auditory stimulus. We examined whether free task choices were biased by modality compatibility, so that modality compatible tasks are preferred in VTS. The choice probability analysis indicated that participants tended to choose the response modality that is compatible to the stimulus modality. However, participants did not show a preference to repeat a stimulus-response (S-R) modality mapping, but to switch between modality compatibility (i.e., from S-R modality compatible mapping to S-R modality incompatible mapping and vice versa). More interestingly, even though participants freely chose the response modality, modality compatibility still influenced task-switching costs, showing larger costs with modality incompatible mappings. The finding that modality compatibility influenced choice behaviour suggests components of both top-down control and bottom-up effects of selecting a response modality for different stimulus modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29926170What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.