On Doing Two Things at Once: III. Confirmation of Perfect Timesharing When Simultaneous Tasks are Ideomotor Compatible

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 859-868

  Greenwald, Anthony G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFLICT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0242509331     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.859     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single-channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225-235.
2. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462-479.
3. Bernstein, I. H., Clark, M. H., & Edelstein, B. A. (1969). Effects of an auditory signal on visual reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 567-569.
4. Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
5. Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108, 847-869.
6. De Jong, R. (1997). Compatibility effects on performance and executive control in dynamic task settings. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 223-239). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
7. Greenwald, A. G. (1970a). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 20-25.
8. Greenwald, A. G. (1970b). A double-stimulation test of ideomotor theory with implications for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84, 392-398.
9. Greenwald, A. G. (1970c). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideomotor mechanism, Psychological Review, 77, 73-99.
10. Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52-57.
11. Greenwald, A. G., & Shulman, H. G. (1973). On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 70-76.
12. Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stoecker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 470-482.
13. Inquisit (Version 1.32) [Computer software]. (2002). Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software.
14. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vols. 1 & 2). New York: Holt.
15. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14 (Whole No. 89), 5-82.
16. Knuf, L., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). An analysis of ideomotor action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 779-798.
17. Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387-394.
18. Lien, M.-C., Proctor, R. W., & Allen, P. A. (2002). Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 396-409.
19. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65.
20. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749-791.
21. Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 826-842.
22. Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 277-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-223.
24. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 121, 101-108.
25. Smith, E. E. (1968). Choice reaction time: An analysis of the major theoretical positions. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 77-110.
26. Wegner, D. M., Ansfield, M. E., & Pilloff, D. (1998). The putt and the pendulum: Ironic effects of the mental control of action. Psychological Science, 9, 196-199.
27. Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology (Rev. ed.). New York: Holt.