TY - JOUR A1 - Huestegge, Lynn A1 - Pieczykolan, Aleks A1 - Koch, Iring T1 - A Gestalt account of human behavior is supported by evidence from switching between single and dual actions JF - Scientific Reports N2 - The question of how behavior is represented in the mind lies at the core of psychology as the science of mind and behavior. While a long-standing research tradition has established two opposing fundamental views of perceptual representation, Structuralism and Gestalt psychology, we test both accounts with respect to action representation: Are multiple actions (characterizing human behavior in general) represented as the sum of their component actions (Structuralist view) or holistically (Gestalt view)? Using a single-/dual-response switch paradigm, we analyzed switches between dual ([A + B]) and single ([A], [B]) responses across different effector systems and revealed comparable performance in partial repetitions and full switches of behavioral requirements (e.g., in [A + B] → [A] vs. [B] → [A], or [A] → [A + B] vs. [B] → [A + B]), but only when the presence of dimensional overlap between responses allows for Gestalt formation. This evidence for a Gestalt view of behavior in our paradigm challenges some fundamental assumptions in current (tacitly Structuralist) action control theories (in particular the idea that all actions are represented compositionally with reference to their components), provides a novel explanatory angle for understanding complex, highly synchronized human behavior (e.g., dance), and delimitates the degree to which complex behavior can be analyzed in terms of its basic components. KW - cognitive neuroscience KW - human behaviour KW - learning and memory Y1 - 2023 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-357862 VL - 13 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Hoffmann, Mareike A. A1 - Pieczykolan, Aleks A1 - Koch, Iring A1 - Huestegge, Lynn T1 - Two sources of task prioritization: The interplay of effector-based and task order-based capacity allocation in the PRP paradigm JF - Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics N2 - When processing of two tasks overlaps, performance is known to suffer. In the well-established psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, tasks are triggered by two stimuli with a short temporal delay (stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA), thereby allowing control of the degree of task overlap. A decrease of the SOA reliably yields longer RTs of the task associated with the second stimulus (Task 2) while performance in the other task (Task 1) remains largely unaffected. This Task 2-specific SOA effect is usually interpreted in terms of central capacity limitations. Particularly, it has been assumed that response selection in Task 2 is delayed due to the allocation of less capacity until this process has been completed in Task 1. Recently, another important factor determining task prioritization has been proposed—namely, the particular effector systems associated with tasks. Here, we study both sources of task prioritization simultaneously by systematically combining three different effector systems (pairwise combinations of oculomotor, vocal, and manual responses) in the PRP paradigm. Specifically, we asked whether task order-based task prioritization (SOA effect) is modulated as a function of Task 2 effector system. The results indicate a modulation of SOA effects when the same (oculomotor) Task 1 is combined with a vocal versus a manual Task 2. This is incompatible with the assumption that SOA effects are solely determined by Task 1 response selection duration. Instead, they support the view that dual-task processing bottlenecks are resolved by establishing a capacity allocation scheme fed by multiple input factors, including attentional weights associated with particular effector systems. KW - cognitive and attentional control KW - dual-task performance KW - dual task procedures (PRP) Introduction In everyday Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-235365 SN - 1943-3921 VL - 82 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Huestegge, Lynn A1 - Herbort, Oliver A1 - Gosch, Nora A1 - Kunde, Wilfried A1 - Pieczykolan, Aleks T1 - Free-choice saccades and their underlying determinants: explorations of high-level voluntary oculomotor control JF - Journal of Vision N2 - Models of eye-movement control distinguish between different control levels, ranging from automatic (bottom-up, stimulus-driven selection) and automatized (based on well-learned routines) to voluntary (top-down, goal-driven selection, e.g., based on instructions). However, one type of voluntary control has yet only been examined in the manual and not in the oculomotor domain, namely free-choice selection among arbitrary targets, that is, targets that are of equal interest from both a bottom-up and top-down processing perspective. Here, we ask which features of targets (identity- or location-related) are used to determine such oculomotor free-choice behavior. In two experiments, participants executed a saccade to one of four peripheral targets in three different choice conditions: unconstrained free choice, constrained free choice based on target identity (color), and constrained free choice based on target location. The analysis of choice frequencies revealed that unconstrained free-choice selection closely resembled constrained choice based on target location. The results suggest that free-choice oculomotor control is mainly guided by spatial (location-based) target characteristics. We explain these results by assuming that participants tend to avoid less parsimonious recoding of target-identity representations into spatial codes, the latter being a necessary prerequisite to configure oculomotor commands. KW - Adolescent KW - Stimulation KW - Adult KW - Eye Movements/physiology KW - Female KW - Humans KW - Learning/physiology KW - Male KW - Oculomotor Muscles/physiology KW - Photic KW - Choice Behavior/physiology KW - Psychomotor Performance/physiology KW - Saccades/physiology KW - Young Adult KW - eye movement KW - saccades KW - free choice KW - top-down processing KW - bottom-up processing KW - control levels Y1 - 2019 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-201493 VL - 19 IS - 3 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Pieczykolan, Aleks A1 - Huestegge, Lynn T1 - Cross-modal Action Complexity: Action- and Rule-related Memory Retrieval in Dual-response Control JF - Frontiers in Psychology N2 - Normally, we do not act within a single effector system only, but rather coordinate actions across several output modules (cross-modal action). Such cross-modal action demands can vary substantially with respect to their complexity in terms of the number of task-relevant response combinations and to-be-retrieved stimulus-response (S-R) mapping rules. In the present study, we study the impact of these two types of cross-modal action complexity on dual-response costs (i.e., performance differences between single- and dual-action demands). In Experiment 1, we combined a manual and an oculomotor task, each involving four response alternatives. Crucially, one (unconstrained) condition involved all 16 possible combinations of response alternatives, whereas a constrained condition involved only a subset of possible response combinations. The results revealed that preparing for a larger number of response combinations yielded a significant, but moderate increase in dual-response costs. In Experiment 2, we utilized one common lateralized auditory (e.g., left) stimulus to trigger incompatible response compounds (e.g., left saccade and right key press or vice versa). While one condition only involved one set of task-relevant S-R rules, another condition involved two sets of task-relevant rules (coded by stimulus type: noise/tone), while the number of task-relevant response combinations was the same in both conditions. Here, an increase in the number of to-be-retrieved S-R rules was associated with a substantial increase in dual-response costs that were also modulated on a trial-by-trial basis when switching between rules. Taken together, the results shed further light on the dependency of cross-modal action control on both action- and rule-related memory retrieval processes. KW - task rules KW - cross-modal action KW - dual tasks KW - dual-response costs KW - oculomotor control Y1 - 2017 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-157794 VL - 8 IS - 529 ER -