Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference

Previous studies have paired a visual–manual Task 1 with an auditory–vocal Task 2 to evaluate whether the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect is eliminated with two ideomotor-compatible tasks (for which stimuli resemble the response feedback). The present study varied the number of stimulus-response alternatives for Task 1 in three experiments to determine whether set-size and PRP effects were absent, as would be expected if the tasks bypass limited-capacity response-selection processes. In Experiments 1 and 2, the visual–manual task was used as Task 1, with lever-movement and keypress responses, respectively. In Experiment 3, the auditory–vocal task was used as Task 1 and the visual–manual task as Task 2. A significant lengthening of reaction time for 4 vs. 2 alternatives was found for the visual–manual Task 1 and the Task 2 PRP effect in Experiments 1 and 2, suggesting that the visual–manual task is not ideomotor compatible. Neither effect of set size was significant for the auditory–vocal Task 1 in Experiment 3, but there was still a Task 2 PRP effect. Our results imply that neither version of the visual–manual task is ideomotor compatible; other considerations suggest that the auditory–vocal task may also still require response selection.