ArticlePsychological research2026
Effect of modality compatibility on dual-task performance in a more naturalistic environment.
Article in Psychological research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The modality-compatibility effect describes multitasking-specific performance differences between compatible stimulus-response mappings (e.g., visual-manual and auditory-vocal) and incompatible mappings (e.g., visual-vocal and auditory-manual). The modality compatibility effect has been demonstrated in various studies on dual-tasking with classical laboratory experimental designs. However, it remains unclear whether the effect also exists in everyday-life dual-task situations, such as driving while performing an additional task. Here, we investigated modality compatibility effects under single-task and dual-task conditions and compared a classical laboratory setting with a more naturalistic driving simulator setting, in which participants acted as front seat passengers and were not required to operate the vehicle. We hypothesized larger dual-task costs under modality incompatible mappings compared to modality compatible mappings across settings, and a higher magnitude of the modality compatibility effect on dual-task costs in the classical laboratory setting than in the driving simulator setting. Participants (N = 31, age: 22.86 years ± 2.04, 21 women, 10 men) responded manually or vocally to visual or auditory stimuli (modality compatible mappings or modality incompatible mappings) in both settings. Results revealed greater dual-task costs for modality incompatible mappings than modality compatible mappings for reaction time only. However, overall dual-task costs did not differ between the classical laboratory and the driving simulator settings. Most importantly, there was a significant interaction effect between modality mapping and setting such that the effect of the modality incompatible mapping was more pronounced in the classical laboratory than in the driving simulator. These findings highlight that the magnitude of interference from modality incompatible mappings is weaker in more naturalistic settings compared to the classical laboratory. This suggests that the modality-compatibility effect may exist in real-world contexts, but not in the same way as in the classical laboratory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.