Four questions for passive frame theory

Four questions are raised about the passive frame theory of Morsella et al.: (1) What is the relation of the theory to the response-selection-bottleneck view of attention? (2) Does the theory accommodate the contents of consciousness? (3) What about animals without skeletal muscles? (4) How do the contents of consciousness change with the development of automaticity?

Locus of Backward Crosstalk Effects on Task 1 in a Psychological Refractory Period Task

Our performance on a task decreases when the task is in a dual-task situation than when it is in isolation. An important experimental setting for dual-task situation is the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, and the dual-task performance decrements in the PRP paradigm are referred to as PRP interference. The standard response-selection bottleneck (RSB) models state that the response-selection stage of the second task (T2) cannot start until the response-selection stage of the first task (T1) finishes, resulting in the PRP interference. Contrary to the prediction of RSB models, several researchers have found T2’s modulations on T1’s performance, and have suggested that T1’s selection-related processes are affected by T2’s selection-related processes, referred to as backward crosstalk effects. The locus of backward crosstalk effects is not clear, however, because RTs were measured in most previous studies. By using semantically unrelated stimuli and responses and by measuring T1’s lateralized readiness potential, we examined the locus of backward crosstalk effects. We found that the interval between T1’s stimulus onset and the stimulus-locked LRP onset was affected, suggesting T2’s response selection starts before T1’s selection is complete. The present result provided electrophysiological evidence focusing on T1’s changes in favor of the hypothesis of parallel response selection in the PRP paradigm.

Valence Processing Bypassing the Response Selection Bottleneck?

The activation of semantic categories has often been claimed to occur in an attention-free, unconditionally automatic fashion (e.g., Bargh & Chartrand, 1999 ; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004 ). Using a dual-task procedure we tested whether the activation of valence categories is restricted by dual-task specific attentional limitations. For this reason we implemented a modified Eriksen-flanker task as Task 2 in a psychological refractory period paradigm. Participants were to judge the frequency of a tone in Task 1 and the valence of a target word in the presence of irrelevant flanker words in Task 2. Two different flanker categories ensured the activation of semantic categories instead of S-R based response activation. The most important result was an underadditive interaction between flanker congruency and the amount of temporal overlap between tasks that was independent of flanker type. Following the locus-of-slack logic, we interpret these findings as evidence for Task 2 processing parallel to bottleneck-stage processing in Task 1. This extends previous findings by showing that not only number categories ( Fischer, Schubert, & Miller, 2007 ; Oriet, Tombu, & Jolicouer, 2005 ), but also semantic valence categories can be activated despite dual-task capacity limitations.