Am I Winning or Losing? Probing the Appraisal of Partial Wins via Response Vigor.

Attempts to obtain rewards are not always successful. Despite investing much time, effort, or money, sometimes individuals may not obtain any reward. Other times they may obtain some reward, but the obtained reward may be smaller than their initial investment, such as partial wins in gambling. It remains unclear how such ambiguous outcomes are appraised. To address this question, we systematically varied the payoffs for different outcomes in a computerized scratch card task across three experiments. To test outcome appraisal, we used response vigor as a novel proxy. In the scratch card task, participants turned three cards one by one. Depending on the turned cards, they either received an amount that was higher than the wager (win), an amount lower than the wager (partial win), or nothing (loss). Overall, participants responded to partial wins more slowly than losses, but more quickly than wins. Partial wins were therefore appraised to be better than losses, but worse than wins. Importantly, further analyses showed that outcome appraisal was not based on the net win or loss amount. Instead, participants primarily used the configuration of turned cards as a cue for the relative rank of an outcome within a specific game. Outcome appraisals thus utilize simple heuristic rules, rely on salient information (such as outcome-related cues in gambling), and are specific to a local context. Together, these factors may contribute to the misperception of partial wins as real wins in gambling. Future work may examine how outcome appraisal may be modulated by the salience of certain information, and investigate the appraisal process in contexts beyond gambling.

Benefits and costs of self-paced preparation of novel task instructions.

Rapidly executing novel instructions is a critical ability. However, it remains unclear whether longer preparation of novel instructions improves performance, and if so, whether this link is modulated by performance benefits and costs of preparation. Regarding the first question, we reanalysed previous data on novel instruction implementation and ran Experiment 1. Experiment 1 consisted of multiple mini-blocks, in which participants prepared four novel stimulus-response (S-R) mappings in a self-paced instruction phase. After participants indicated they were ready, one of the four stimuli was presented and they responded. The reanalysis and Experiment 1 showed that longer preparation indeed led to better performance. To examine if preparation was modulated when the benefits of preparation were reduced, we presented the correct response with the stimulus on some trials in Experiments 2 and 3. Preparation was shorter when the probability that the correct response was presented with the stimulus increased. In Experiment 4, we manipulated the costs of preparation by changing the S-R mappings between the instruction and execution phases on some trials. This had only limited effects on preparation time. In conclusion, self-paced preparation of novel instructions comes with performance benefits and costs, and participants adjust their preparation strategy to the task context.

Saccadic eye movements in dual tasking: No impairment of spatial planning, but delayed execution of saccades.

In the target-distractor saccade task, a target and an irrelevant distractor are simultaneously presented and the task itself consists of a target-directed saccade. Findings usually show that as saccade latency increases, saccade trajectory deviation towards the distractor decreases. We presented this saccade task in two dual-task experiments to address the open question of whether performance of an auditory-manual task simply delays the temporal execution of a saccade, or whether it also interferes with the spatial planning of the saccade trajectory. We measured saccade latency, as a measure of a delay in execution, and saccade trajectory deviation, as a measure of the spatial planning. In Experiment 1, the auditory-manual task was a two-choice reaction time (two-CRT) task, and in Experiment 2, it was a go-no-go task. Performing the two tasks in close temporal succession shortly delayed the temporal execution of the saccade, but did not influence the spatial planning of the saccade trajectory. This result pattern was more pronounced when the auditory-manual task required the selection and execution of one of two possible manual responses (Experiment 1), less pronounced when the auditory-manual task required the decision to execute a button press (go condition, Experiment 2), and absent when the auditory-manual task required the decision to inhibit a button press (no-go condition, Experiment 2). Taken together, the manual response rather than the response selection process of the auditory-manual task led to a delay of saccade execution, but not to an impairment of the spatial planning of the saccade trajectory.

Dissociating central and auditory attention: Is there a shared bottleneck for response selection and auditory search?

Central and auditory attention are limited in capacity. In dual-tasks, central attention is required to select the appropriate response, but because central attention is limited in capacity, response selection can only be carried out for one task at a time. In auditory search tasks, search time to detect the target sound increases with the number of distractor sounds added to the auditory scene (set sizes), indicating that auditory attention is limited in capacity. Here, we investigated whether central and auditory attention relied on common or distinct capacity limitations using a dual-task paradigm. In two experiments, participants completed a visual choice discrimination task (task 1) together with an auditory search task (task 2), and the two tasks were separated by an experimentally modulated stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). Analysing auditory search time as a function of SOA and set sizes (locus-of-slack method) revealed that the auditory search process in task 2 was performed after response selection in a visual two-choice discrimination task 1 (Experiment 1), but concurrently with response selection in a visual four-choice discrimination task 1 (Experiment 2). Hence, although response selection in the visual four-choice discrimination task demanded more central attention as compared with response selection in the two-choice discrimination task, the auditory search process was performed in parallel. Distribution analyses of inter-response time further indicated that parallel processing of response selection and auditory search was not influenced by response grouping. Taken together, the two experiments provided evidence that central and auditory attention relied on distinct capacity limitations.

Visual and central attention share a capacity limitation when the demands for serial item selection in visual search are high.

Visual and central attention are limited in capacity. In conjunction search, visual attention is required to select the items and to bind their features (e.g., color, form, size), which results in a serial search process. In dual-tasks, central attention is required for response selection, but because central attention is limited in capacity, response selection can only be carried out for one task at a time. Here, we investigated whether visual and central attention rely on a common or on distinct capacity limitations. In two dual-task experiments, participants completed an auditory two-choice discrimination Task 1 and a conjunction search Task 2 that were presented with an experimentally modulated temporal interval between them (stimulus onset asynchrony [SOA]). In Experiment 1, Task 2 was a triple conjunction search task. Each item consisted of a conjunction of three features, so that target and distractors shared two features. In Experiment 2, Task 2 was a plus conjunction search task, in which target and distractors shared the same four features. The hypotheses for conjunction search time were derived from the locus-of-slack method. While plus conjunction search was performed after response selection in Task 1, a small part of triple conjunction search was still performed in parallel to response selection in Task 1. However, the between-experiment comparison was not significant, indicating that both search tasks may require central attention. Taken together, the present study provides evidence that visual and central attention share a common capacity limitation when conjunction search relies strongly on serial item selection.

Open Up - the Mission Statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab on Open Science.

The present paper is the mission statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab regarding Open Science. As early-career researchers (ECRs) in the lab, we first state our personal motivation to conduct research based on the principles of Open Science. We then describe how we incorporate four specific Open Science practices (i.e., Open Methodology, Open Data, Open Source, and Open Access) into our scientific workflow. In more detail, we explain how Open Science practices are embedded into the so-called 'co-pilot' system in our lab. The 'co-pilot' researcher is involved in all tasks of the 'pilot' researcher, that is designing a study, double-checking experimental and data analysis scripts, as well as writing the manuscript. The lab has set up this co-pilot system to increase transparency, reduce potential errors that could occur during the entire workflow, and to intensify collaborations between lab members. Finally, we discuss potential solutions for general problems that could arise when practicing Open Science.

More insight into the interplay of response selection and visual attention in dual-tasks: masked visual search and response selection are performed in parallel.

Both response selection and visual attention are limited in capacity. According to the central bottleneck model, the response selection processes of two tasks in a dual-task situation are performed sequentially. In conjunction search, visual attention is required to select the items and to bind their features (e.g., color and form), which results in a serial search process. Search time increases as items are added to the search display (i.e., set size effect). When the search display is masked, visual attention deployment is restricted to a brief period of time and target detection decreases as a function of set size. Here, we investigated whether response selection and visual attention (i.e., feature binding) rely on a common or on distinct capacity limitations. In four dual-task experiments, participants completed an auditory Task 1 and a conjunction search Task 2 that were presented with an experimentally modulated temporal interval between them (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony, SOA). In Experiment 1, Task 1 was a two-choice discrimination task and the conjunction search display was not masked. In Experiment 2, the response selection difficulty in Task 1 was increased to a four-choice discrimination and the search task was the same as in Experiment 1. We applied the locus-of-slack method in both experiments to analyze conjunction search time, that is, we compared the set size effects across SOAs. Similar set size effects across SOAs (i.e., additive effects of SOA and set size) would indicate sequential processing of response selection and visual attention. However, a significantly smaller set size effect at short SOA compared to long SOA (i.e., underadditive interaction of SOA and set size) would indicate parallel processing of response selection and visual attention. In both experiments, we found underadditive interactions of SOA and set size. In Experiments 3 and 4, the conjunction search display in Task 2 was masked. Task 1 was the same as in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. In both experiments, the d' analysis revealed that response selection did not affect target detection. Overall, Experiments 1-4 indicated that neither the response selection difficulty in the auditory Task 1 (i.e., two-choice vs. four-choice) nor the type of presentation of the search display in Task 2 (i.e., not masked vs. masked) impaired parallel processing of response selection and conjunction search. We concluded that in general, response selection and visual attention (i.e., feature binding) rely on distinct capacity limitations.

The Movement-Image Compatibility Effect: Embodiment Theory Interpretations of Motor Resonance With Digitized Photographs, Drawings, and Paintings.

To evoke the impression of movement in the "immobile" image is one of the central motivations of the visual art, and the activating effect of images has been discussed in art psychology already some 100 years ago. However, this topic has up to now been largely neglected by the researchers in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. This study investigates - from an interdisciplinary perspective - the formation of lateralized instances of motion when an observer perceives movement in an image. A first step was to identify images that evoke a perception of movement in a certain direction and to give this a rating. Reaction times leading to the engagement of a joystick following the presentation of images are used to evidence the postulated movement occasioned by the perception of movement in an image. Where the required direction of joystick moves matched the expected perception of movement direction in the image, significantly shorter reaction times were recorded. The experiment was able to prove a "movement-image compatibility effect" in observers of images. Based on this, the paper revisits and brings up to date the theses on motor sensory response to images which were developed in art psychology at the beginning of the 20th century. It furthermore contributes an embodiment theory interpretation to the prevalent representational explanation of compatibility effects.

The impact of free-order and sequential-order instructions on task-order regulation in dual tasks.

Dual tasks (DTs) are characterized by the requirement for additional mechanisms that coordinate the processing order of two temporally overlapping tasks. These mechanisms are indicated by two types of costs that occur when comparing DT blocks with fixed and random orders of the component tasks. On a block level, task-order control costs are reflected in increased reaction times (RTs) in random-order compared to fixed-order blocks, indicating global, monitoring-based, coordination mechanisms. On a trial level, within random-order blocks, order-switch costs are indicated by increased RTs on order switch compared to order repetition trials, reflecting memory-based mechanisms that guide task-order in DTs. To test the nature of these mechanisms in two experiments, participants performed DTs in fixed- and random-order blocks. In random-order blocks, participants were either instructed to respond to both tasks according to the order of task presentation (sequential-order instruction) or instructed to freely decide in which order to perform both tasks (free-order instruction). As a result of both experiments, we demonstrated that task-order control costs were reduced under the free-order compared to the sequential-order instruction, whereas order-switch costs were not affected by our instruction manipulation. This pattern of results suggests that the task-order control costs reflect global processes of task-order regulation such as engaging monitoring processes that are sensitive to changes in order instructions, while order-switch costs reflect rather local memory-based mechanisms that occur irrespective of any effort to coordinate task-order.

Concurrent deployment of visual attention and response selection bottleneck in a dual-task: Electrophysiological and behavioural evidence.

Visual attention and response selection are limited in capacity. Here, we investigated whether visual attention requires the same bottleneck mechanism as response selection in a dual-task of the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. The dual-task consisted of an auditory two-choice discrimination Task 1 and a conjunction search Task 2, which were presented at variable temporal intervals (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA). In conjunction search, visual attention is required to select items and to bind their features resulting in a serial search process around the items in the search display (i.e., set size). We measured the reaction time of the visual search task (RT2) and the N2pc, an event-related potential (ERP), which reflects lateralized visual attention processes. If the response selection processes in Task 1 influence the visual attention processes in Task 2, N2pc latency and amplitude would be delayed and attenuated at short SOA compared to long SOA. The results, however, showed that latency and amplitude were independent of SOA, indicating that visual attention was concurrently deployed to response selection. Moreover, the RT2 analysis revealed an underadditive interaction of SOA and set size. We concluded that visual attention does not require the same bottleneck mechanism as response selection in dual-tasks.

Are processing limitations of visual attention and response selection subject to the same bottleneck in dual-tasks?

Visual attention and response selection are processes that are limited by capacity. The present study focuses on whether visual attention is subject to the response selection bottleneck. This was investigated by conducting 2 dual-task experiments of the psychological refractory period (PRP) type. A visual conjunction search task was chosen as Task 2 in these experiments. Conjunction search requires the binding of the stimulus' defining features. This binding is performed in a serial search process in displays of different amounts of stimuli until the presence or absence of the target is correctly indicated. In Experiment 1, the conjunction search was combined with a 2-choice tone discrimination Task 1, and in Experiment 2 with a 2-choice color discrimination Task 1. Detailed reaction time (RT) analyses revealed concurrent performance of visual search to both tone and color in Task 1's response selection. In conclusion, visual attention is not subject to the response selection bottleneck.