In search of cross-talk facilitation in a dual-cued recall task

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 750-767

  Rickard, Timothy C ^a   Bajic, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cross talk; Cued recall; Dual task; Facilitation; Redundant cues

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; RECALL; REVIEW; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS;

EID: 23844464820     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.750     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Colonius, H., & Ellermeier, W. (1997). Distribution inequalities for parallel models of reaction time with an application to auditory profile analysis. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 19-27.
2. Colonius, H., & Vorberg, D. (1994). Distribution inequalities for parallel models with unlimited capacity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 38, 35-58.
3. Egeth, H., & Dagenbach, D. (1991). Parallel versus serial processing in visual search: Further evidence from subadditive effects of visual quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 551-560.
4. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target response in a non-search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.
5. Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. (1999). Can new objects override attentional control settings? Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 727-739.
6. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1368-1384.
7. Liang, T., & Healy, A. F. (2002). The unitization effect in reading Chinese and English text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 167-197.
8. Loftus, G. R. (2002). Analysis, interpretation, and visual presentation of experimental data. In H. Pashler & J. Wixted (Eds.), Steven's handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 339-390). New York: Wiley.
9. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
10. Logan, G. D., & Delheimer, J. A. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1072-1090.
11. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual task situations. Psychological Review, 2, 393-434.
12. Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072-1090.
13. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
14. Maylor, E. A., Chater, N., & Jones, G. V. (2001). Searching for two things at once: Evidence of exclusivity in semantic and autobiographical memory retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1185-1195.
15. Micro Experimental Laboratory Professional (Version 2.01) [Computer software]. (1998). Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
16. Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247-279.
17. Nino, R., & Rickard, T. C. (2003). Practice effects on two memory retrievals from a single cue. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 373-388.
18. Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266-300.
19. Pashler, H. (1998). Attention. Hove, England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum.
20. Pashler, H., & Badgio, P. C. (1985). Visual attention and stimulus identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 105-121.
21. Pratt, J., & Castel, A. D. (2001). Responding to feature or location: A re-examination of inhibition of return and facilitation of return. Vision Research, 28, 3903-3908.
22. Rickard, T. C. (1997). Bending the power law: A CMPL theory of strategy shifts and the automatization of cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 288-311.
23. Rickard, T. C. (1999). A CMPL alternative account of practice effects in numerosity judgment tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 532-542.
24. Rickard, T. C. (2004). Strategy execution in cognitive skill learning: An item-level test of candidate models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 65-82.
25. Rickard, T. C., & Bajic, D. (2004). Memory retrieval given two independent cues: Cue selection or parallel access? Cognitive Psychology, 48, 243-294.
26. Rickard, T. C., & Pashler, H. (2004). A bottleneck of memory retrieval from a single cue. Unpublished manuscript.
27. Rohrer, D., Pashler, H., & Etchegaray, J. (1998). When two memories can and cannot be retrieved concurrently. Memory & Cognition, 26, 731-739.
28. Shiffrin, R. M., & Gardner, G. T. (1972). Visual processing capacity and attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 78-82.
29. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30. Van der Heijden, A. H. (1975). Some evidence for a limited capacity parallel self-terminating process in simple visual search tasks. Acta Psychologia, 39, 21-41.
31. Van Zandt, T. (2000). How to fit a response time distribution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 424-465.