Visual word recognition without central attention: Evidence for greater automaticity with advancing age

Psychology and Aging

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 431-447

  Lien, Mei Ching ^a   Allen, Philip A ^b   Ruthruff, Eric ^c   Grabbe, Jeremy ^b   McCann, Robert S ^d   Remington, Roger W ^e  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AKRON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^d NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Aging; Divided attention; Dual task interference; Visual word recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LIFESPAN; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUTOMATISM; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; REACTION TIME; READING; REFERENCE VALUES; SEMANTICS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33749020280     PISSN: 08827974     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.431     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Allen, P. A., Lien, M.-C., Murphy, M. D., Sanders, R. E., Judge, K. S., & McCann, S. R. (2002). Age differences in overlapping-task performance: Evidence for efficient parallel processing in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 17, 505-519.
2. Allen, P. A., Smith, A. F., Vires-Collins, H., & Sperry, S. (1998). The psychological refractory period: Evidence for age differences in attentional time-sharing. Psychology and Aging, 13, 218-229.
3. Allen, P. A., Wallace, B., & Weber, T. A. (1995). Influence of case type, word frequency, and exposure duration on visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 914-934.
4. Borger, R. (1963). The refractory period and serial choice-reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 15(A), 1-12.
5. Brown, T. L., Roos-Gilbert, L., & Carr, T. H. (1995). Automaticity and word perception: Evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1395-1411.
6. Cerella, J. (1990). Aging and information-processing rates. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed., pp. 201-221). New York: Academic Press.
7. Craik, F. I. M., & Salthouse, T. A. (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Glass, J. M., Schumacher, E. H., Lauber, E. J., Zurbriggen, E. L., Gmeindl, L., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2000). Aging and the psychological refractory period: Task-coordination strategies in young and old adults. Psychology and Aging, 15, 571-595.
9. Hartley, A. A. (2001). Age differences in dual-task interference are localized to response-generation processes. Psychology and Aging, 16, 47-54.
10. Hartley, A. A., & Little, D. M. (1999). Age-related differences and similarities in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 416-449.
11. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356-388.
12. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 193-225). New York: Academic Press.
13. Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291-345.
14. Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527-545.
15. Johnston, J. C., & McCann, R. S. (2006). On the locus of dual-task interference: Is there a bottleneck at the stimulus classification stage? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 59(A), 694-719.
16. Johnston, J. C., McCann, R. S., & Remington, R. W. (1995). Chronometric evidence for two types of attention. Psychological Science, 6, 365-369.
17. Kuçera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
18. Lachter, J., Forster, K. I., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Forty years after Broadbent: Still no identification without attention. Psychological Review, 111, 880-913.
19. Lachter, J., Ruthruff, E., Lien, M.-C., & McCann, R. S. (2006). Is attention needed for object identification? Evidence from the Stroop paradigm. Manuscript submitted for publication.
20. Lien, M.-C., McCann, R. E., Ruthruff, E., & Proctor, R. W. (2005). Dual-task performance with ideomotor-compatible tasks: Is the central processing bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 122-144.
21. Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212-238.
22. Lien, M.-C., Proctor, R. W., & Allen, P. A. (2002). Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: Twenty-nine years of oversimplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 396-409.
23. Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S.-L., & Yu, Y.-T. (in press). Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
24. 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, 1260-1280.
25. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
26. Maquestiaux, F., Hartley, A., & Bertsch, J. (2004). Can practice overcome age-related differences in the psychological refractory period effect? Psychology and Aging, 19, 649-667.
27. McCann, R. S., Folk, C. L., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). The role of spatial attention in visual word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1015-1029.
28. 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.
29. McCann, R. S., Remington, R. W., & Van Selst, M. (2000). A dual-task investigation of automaticity in visual word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1352-1370.
30. McDowd, J. M., & Shaw. R. J. (2000). Attention and aging: A functional perspective. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 221-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749-791.
32. Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358-377.
33. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
34. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 41(A), 19-45.
35. Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (in press). What causes residual dual-task cost after practice? Psychological Research.
36. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H., & Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or voluntary postponement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 73-80.
37. Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. W. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or simply stage-shortening? Psychological Research, 70, 125-142.
38. Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103, 403-428.
39. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
40. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D., Lauber, E., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central attentional bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101-108.
41. Schweickert, R. (1978). A critical path generalization of the additive factors method: Analysis of a Stroop task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18, 105-139.
42. Spieler, D. H., & Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996). Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer's type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 461-479.
43. Telford, C. W. (1931). Refractory phase of voluntary and associative response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1-35.
44. Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
45. Welford, A. T. (1952). The "psychological refractory period" and the timing of high speed performance. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2-19.
46. Zacks, R. T., Hasher, L., & Li, K. Z. H. (2000). Human memory. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 293-358). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.