Emergent perceptual features in the benefit of consistent stimulus-response mappings on dual-task performance

Psychological Research

Volumn 70, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 468-483

  Vu, Kim Phuong L ^a   Proctor, Robert W ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONFLICT; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HEARING; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; RESPONSE TIME;

ATTENTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; DOMINANCE, CEREBRAL; HUMANS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PITCH PERCEPTION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 33749990830     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0021-7     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Duncan, J. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 216-228.
2. Ehrenstein, A., & Proctor, R. W. (1998). Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks. Psychological Research, 61, 231-248.
3. Ivry, R. B., Franz, E. A., Kingstone, A., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). The psychological refractory period effect following callosotomy: Uncoupling of lateralized response codes. Journal of Experimental PSychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 463-480.
4. Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1260-1280.
5. 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.
6. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65.
7. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155-189). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
8. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). Consistent mappings for dual tasks do not always yield better performance than inconsistent mappings. Paper presented at Conference on Process-Based and Code-Based Interference in Dual Tasks, Ohlstadt, Germany. (February)
9. Reeve, T. G., Proctor, R. W., Weeks, D. J., & Dornier, L. (1992). Salience of stimulus and response features in choice-reaction tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 453-460.
10. Tombu, M. & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 3-18.
11. Yantis, S. (1996). Attentional capture in vision. In A.F. Kramer, M.G.H. Coles, G.D. Logan (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 45-76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.