Dual-task slowing and the effects of cross-task compatibility

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 57, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 693-713

  Azuma, Rayna ^a,b   Prinz, Wolfgang ^a   Koch, Iring ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ADULT; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 2542541261     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980343000459     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Arnell, K. M., & Duncan, J. (2002). Separate and shared sources of dual-task cost in stimulus identification and response selection. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 105-147.
2. Blake, R. R., & Fox, R. (1969). Visual form recognition threshold and the psychological refractory period. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 46-48.
3. De Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750.
4. De Jong, R., & Sweet, J. B. (1994). Preparatory strategies in overlapping-task performance. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 142-151.
5. Dell'Acqua, R., & Jolicoeur, P. (2000). Visual encoding of patterns is subject to dual-task interference. Memory and Cognition, 28, 184-191.
6. Hommel, B. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 55, 280-290.
7. Hommel, B. (1994a). Effects of irrelevant spatial S-R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 185-195.
8. Hommel, B. (1994b). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 261-268.
9. Jolicoeur, P. (1999a). Dual-task interference and visual encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 596-616.
10. Jolicoeur, P. (1999b). Restricted attentional capacity between sensory modalities. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 87-92.
11. Jolicoeur, P., & Dell'Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138-202.
12. Jolicoeur, P., & Dell'Acqua, R. (1999). Attentional and structural constraints on visual encoding. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 62, 154-164.
13. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14. Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 192-201.
15. Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. In G. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 743-777). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
16. Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 130-135.
17. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility. A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
18. Kornblum, S., & Lee, J.-W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855-875.
19. McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 471-484.
20. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
21. Pashler, H. (1989). Dissociations and dependencies between speed and accuracy: Evidence for a two-component theory of divided attention in simple tasks. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 469-514.
22. Pashler, H. (1993). Dual-task interference and elementary mental mechanisms. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
24. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154.
25. Ross, N. E., & Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Attentional blink for color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1483-1494.
26. Shaffer, L. H. ( 1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
27. Shapiro, K. (Ed.). (2001). The limits of attention: Temporal constraints in human information processing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31-86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
29. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300-304.
30. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research /Psychologische Forschung, 66, 274-286.
31. Welford, A. T. (1952). The "psychological refractory period" and the timing of high-speed performance. A review and theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2-19.
32. Zhang, H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 386-432.