Dual-action benefits: global (action-inherent) and local (transient) sources of action prepotency underlying inhibition failures in multiple action control

Erroneous saccade co-execution during manual action control is independent of oculomotor stimulus-response translation ease

Recent multiple action control studies have demonstrated difficulties with single-action (vs. dual-action) execution when accompanied by the requirement to inhibit a prepotent additional response (e.g., a highly automatic eye movement). Such a dual-action performance benefit is typically characterized by frequent false-positive executions of the currently unwarranted response. Here, we investigated whether the frequency of false-positive saccades is affected by the ease of translating a stimulus into a spatial oculomotor response (S-R translation ease): Is it harder to inhibit a saccade that is more automatically triggered via the stimulus? Participants switched on a trial-by-trial basis between executing a single saccade, a single manual button press, and a saccadic-manual dual action in response to a single visual stimulus. Importantly, we employed three different stimulus modes that varied in oculomotor S-R translation ease (peripheral square > central arrow > central shape). The hierarchy of S-R translation ease was reflected by increasing saccade and manual reaction times. Critically, however, the frequency of false-positive saccades in single manual trials was not substantially affected by the stimulus mode. Our results rule out explanations related to limited capacity sharing (between inhibitory control and S-R translation demands) as well as accounts related to the time available for the completion of saccade inhibition. Instead, the findings suggest that the erroneous co-activation of the oculomotor system was elicited by the mere execution of a (frequently associated) manual response (action-based co-activation).

Flipping the script: Action-plan modification during single- and multiple-action control

In this paper, we tested the idea that local changes in action demands (e.g., due to an invalid cue or trial-by-trial) result in frugal modifications of existing action plans via action-plan-modification operations. We implemented an experimental procedure making use of a cue that indicates the action requirements for an upcoming signal with a certain degree of reliability. Crucially, incongruent cue-stimulus pairs either require action-plan modification or "resetting" the prepared action plan and reselecting a new response from scratch. We systematically varied the proportion of valid cues over four experiments. There were four most basic response conditions: left button press, right button press, dual button presses, no action. Results support the concept of action-plan modification rather than reset-reselect: switching between a left and a right response was faster and less error-prone than any other type of switch, both between trials and between cue and signal. Thus, it appears that given two responses that can be conceived of as polar opposites (within the same single-action category), there is an action-plan-modification operation ("invert") that transforms one into the other at a comparatively low cost. Furthermore, we observed a mixed pattern of dual-action costs and benefits. This indicates that participants represented dual actions holistically, that is, not based on a conjunction of single-action plans as building blocks. In addition, switching from null actions to overt actions appeared to require very similar action-plan-modification operations as other types of switches - thus, null actions are apparently not coded as empty sets, but rather represent actions in their own right. Finally, we observed strikingly similar patterns of results for trial-by-trial changes in action demands and intra-trial cue-signal incongruency. This implies that the mere cue-based formulation of an action plan - which is not actually executed - is sufficient to produce action-switching-like effects.

Dual-Action Costs and Benefits in a Uni-Modal Single-Onset Paradigm

While performing two actions at the same time has mostly been associated with reduced performance, several recent studies have observed the opposite effect, that is, dual-action benefits. Previous evidence suggests that dual-action benefits result from single-action inhibitory costs - more specifically, it appears that under certain circumstances, single-action representations are derived from dual-action representations by removing (i.e., inhibiting) one of the component actions. In the present paper, we investigated if this is tied to the presence of multi-modal response demands (i.e., responses making use of two different effector systems). We implemented a very simple experimental paradigm where participants responded to a single stimulus with zero, one, or two uni-modal responses. As predicted, we did not observe dual-action benefits, but rather significant dual-action costs. Furthermore, a trial-by-trial sequence analysis revealed that alternations between both single-action responses were associated with significantly better performance than all other types of action switches. This can be accounted for by assuming that actions are represented as "feature bundles" and that switching a single, binary distinctive feature of an action to its opposite is relatively easy.