Reconfiguration and the bottleneck: Does task switching affect the refractory period effect?

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 593-623

  Band, Guido ^a,b   Van Nes, Fenna ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NONE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; BODY MOVEMENT; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LATENT PERIOD; LOGIC; MALE; NETHERLANDS; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; REFRACTORY PERIOD; RESPONSE TIME; SELECTIVE ATTENTION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VOCALIZATION;

EID: 33745429405     PISSN: 09541446     EISSN: 14640635     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09541440500423244     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive performance (pp. 35-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Altmann, E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 287-297.
4. Baddeley, A. D., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 641-657.
5. Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2001). Samen door één deur: Steun voor overlapping van responsselectieprocessen in een dubbeltaak [Passing a door together: Support for overlapping response selection processes in a dual task]. In Proceedings of the 8th winter conference of NVP, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands (p. 30). Leiden, The Netherlands: Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychonomie.
6. Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1339-1348.
7. De Jong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 2-25.
8. Emerson, M. J., & Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 148-168.
9. Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, San Diego, USA.
10. Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive performance (pp. 331-355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Goschke, T. (2003). Voluntary action and cognitive control from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. In S. Maasen, W. Prinz, & G. Roth (Eds.), Voluntary action: Brains, minds and sociality (pp. 48-85). New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
13. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology (Whole No. 89).
14. Kahnemann, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15. Kleinsorge, T, & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multidimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300-312.
16. Kray, J., Eber, J., & Lindenberger, U. (2004). Age differences in executive functioning across the life span: The role of verbalization in task preparation. Acta Psychologica, 115, 143-165.
17. Lien, M. C., Schweikert, R., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Task switching and response correspondence in the PRP-paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 692-712.
18. Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 575-599.
19. Logan, G. D., & Delheimer, X A. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 668-685.
20. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434.
21. 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.
22. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in a PRP-paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 556-574.
23. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4-26.
24. Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Cognition, and Memory, 26, 1124-1140.
25. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
26. Meiran, N. (2000). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive performance (pp. 277-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1999). Precis to a practical unified theory of cognition and action: Some lessons from EPIC computational models of human multiple-task performance. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 17-88). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Meyer, D. E., Kieras, D. E., Lauber, E., Schumacher, E. H., Glass, J., Zurbriggen, E., et al. (1995). Adaptive executive control: Flexible multiple-task performance without pervasive immutable response-selection bottlenecks. Acta Psychologica, 90, 163-190.
31. Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., Padilla, F., & Ahn, J. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: The effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 115, 123-142.
32. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
33. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. Davidson, G. Schwartz, & D.Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1-18). New York: Plenum.
34. Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 826-842.
35. Pashler, H. (1991). Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: Distinct attentional mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1023-1040.
36. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
37. Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive performance (pp. 277-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-46.
39. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002). Eliminating, magnifying, and reversing spatial compatibility effects with mixed location-relevant and irrelevant trials. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 443-473). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40. Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 494-519). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
42. Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763-797.
43. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92-105.
44. Schumacher, E., Seymour, T., Glass, J., Fencsik, D., Lauber, E., Kieras, D., & Meyer, D. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101-108.
45. Sohn, M.-H., & Carlson, R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1445-1460.
46. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274-286.
47. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central-capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3-18.
48. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 795-810.
49. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361-413.
50. Welford, A. T. (1952). The "psychological refractory period" and the timing of high speed performance: A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2-19.
51. Wickens, C. D. (1983). Processing resources in attention, dual task performance, and workload assessment. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). New York: Academic Press.