Pupil dilation is known to be affected by a variety of factors, including physical (e.g., light) and cognitive sources of influence (e.g., mental load due to working memory demands, stimulus/response competition etc.). In the present experiment, we tested the extent to which vocal demands (speaking) can affect pupil dilation. Based on corresponding preliminary evidence found in a reanalysis of an existing data set from our lab, we setup a new experiment that systematically investigated vocal response‐related effects compared to mere jaw/lip movement and button press responses. Conditions changed on a trial‐by‐trial basis while participants were instructed to keep fixating a central cross on a screen throughout. In line with our prediction (and previous observation), speaking caused the pupils to dilate strongest, followed by nonvocal movements and finally a baseline condition without any vocal or muscular demands. An additional analysis of blink rates showed no difference in blink frequency between vocal and baseline conditions, but different blink dynamics. Finally, simultaneously recorded electromyographic activity showed that muscle activity may contribute to some (but not all) aspects of the observed effects on pupil size. The results are discussed in the context of other recent research indicating effects of perceived (instead of executed) vocal action on pupil dynamics.

Nowadays, multitasking is ubiquitously discussed within many different scientific disciplines. The present work addressed multitasking from the perspective of cognitive behavioural sciences by investigating the role of conflict resolution processes that arise during the requirements of multiple-action control. More specifically, the present work focuses on cognitive mechanisms in the case of cross-modal action control, which involves the performance of two actions in different effector systems. One aim was to broaden the scope of action modalities typically considered in the literature by studying oculomotor responses (i.e. saccades) – an action modality that has been largely neglected in previous research – in combination with responses in other effector systems (i.e. manual and vocal responses). A further aim was to specify the mechanisms of crosstalk as an explanatory concept referring to the action content, which is particularly relevant since cross-modal actions usually differ regarding their response characteristics. The present work comprises four studies (each involving two or three experiments). In Study A, cross-modal response compounds based on a single stimulus were studied with respect to the interplay of the presence of response alternatives and between-response compatibility (i.e. crosstalk potential). In three experiments, this study showed that crosstalk can be dissociated into a component that determines the amount of current conflict (i.e. online crosstalk) and a memory-based component that originates either from residual activation of previous action demands (retrospective crosstalk) or from preparation for future demands (prospective crosstalk). Study B provided first evidence that oculomotor responses are subject to interference based on both structural and content-based origins. In three experiments, an overlapping tasks paradigm was employed in which the onsets between two stimuli that triggered oculomotor and manual responses were varied. Evidence for both serial and parallel processing of the two tasks was found. The results further indicated that based on the between-task compatibility participants shifted between these processing modes, i.e. to more parallel processing during compatible task demands and to more serial processing during incompatible task demands. Study C examined processing priorities among effector systems and demonstrated in two experiments that the previously reported prioritisation scheme, in which the oculomotor system is prioritised over the vocal and manual effector system, can be replicated, but is also adjusted in its strength by the presence of response conflict. Specifically, processing priorities were shifted towards the response that already is involved in conflict resolution (in terms of stimulus-response compatibility), suggesting that processing priorities can be flexibly adapted to particular task demands. Study D addressed response order control in dual tasks, an issue that has been widely neglected in previous research. In a comprehensive study of three experiments including several factors that are known to be relevant for dual-task interference mechanisms, it was shown that the final response order in a given trial is the result of a continuous adjustment process based on the interplay of several top-down factors, such as the anticipation of response characteristics, and bottom-up factors, such as stimulus order and between-task compatibility. In summary, the present work advances the theoretical understanding of complex action control by providing a cross-modal action perspective, by proposing mechanisms for effector-system prioritisation and response order control, and by proposing a novel taxonomy of crosstalk as an overarching framework for interference mechanisms in multiple-response control.