Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck

Psychological Research

Volumn 70, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 504-513

  Hazeltine, Eliot ^a   Ruthruff, Eric ^b  

^a E11 SSH   (United States)

^b NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Central bottleneck; Dual task; Modalities; Psychological refractory period; Response selection

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HEARING; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; RESPONSE TIME; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PITCH DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REVERSAL LEARNING; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33750023930     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0017-3     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allport, A., Antonis, B.,& Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: a disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225-235.
2. Baldo, J. V., Shimamura, A. P.,& Prinzmetal, W. (1998). Mapping symbols to response modalities; interference on stroop-like tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 427-437.
3. Byrne, M. D.,& Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: the psychological refractory period and perfect time sharing. Psychological Review, 108, 847-869.
4. Carrier, M.,& Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory and Cognition, 20, 633-642.
5. De long, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965-980.
6. Hazeltine, E., Diedrichsen, J., Kennerley, S.,& Ivry, R. B. (2003). Bimanual cross-talk during reaching movements is primarily related to response selection, not the specification of motor parameters. Psychological Research, 67, 56-70.
7. Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E.,& Remington, R. W. (submitted). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance:evidence for content-dependent central interference.
8. Hazeltine, E., Teague, D.,& Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dualtask performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 527-545.
9. Heuer, H. (1995). Models for response-response compatibility: the effects of the relation between responses in a choice task. Acta Psychologia, 90, 315-332.
10. Hirst, W.,& Kalmar, D. (1987). Characterizing attentional resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 6881.
11. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
12. Hommel, B., Müsseier, J., Aschersleben, G.,& Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878.
13. 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.
14. Johnston, J. C., McCann, R. S.,& Remington, R. W. (1995). Chronometric evidence for two types of attention. Psychological Science, 6, 365-369.
15. 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.
16. Lien, M.-C., Schweickert, R.,& Proctor, R. W. (2003). Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 692-712.
17. Logan, G. D.,& Gordan, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434.
18. 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.
19. Luria, R.,& Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 556-574.
20. McLeod, P. A. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 651-667.
21. McLeod, P. A.,& Posner, M. I. (1984). Priviledged loops from percept to act. In H. Bouma& D. Bowhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance (Vol. X, pp. 55-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Meyer, D. E.,& Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory phenomena. Psychological Review, 107, 749-791.
23. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
24. Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358-377.
25. Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support multi-processor models of divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(4), 826-842.
26. Pashler, H. (1991). Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: Distinct attentional mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1023-1040.
27. Pashler, H. (1994a). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
28. Pashler, H. (1994b). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 330-342.
29. Pashler, H.,& Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-45.
30. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M., Whitsell, S.,& Remington, R.W. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 280-289.
31. Ruthruff, E., Miller, J.,& Lachmann, T. (1995). Does mental rotation require central mechanisms? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 552-570.
32. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H.,& Hazeltine, E. (2003). Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement? Perception& Psychophysics, 65, 801-816.
33. Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C.,& Remington, R. W. (in press). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or simply stage-shortening? Psychological Research.
34. Schuch, S.,& Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual-tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566-582.
35. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., 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.
36. Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P. M. A. Rabbitt& S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and Performance (Vol. V, pp. 157-167). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37. Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C.,& Kleinsorge, T. (1997). Preparation of bimanual movements with same and different amplitudes: Specification interference as revealed by reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 96, 207-227.
38. Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C.,& Kleinsorge, T. (2000). Specification of movement amplitude for the left and right hands: Evidence for transient parametric coupling from over-lapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1091-1105.
39. Swinnen, S.,& Wenderoth, N. (2004). Two hands, one brain: cognitive neuroscience of bimanual skill. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 18-25.
40. Teichner, W. H.,& Krebs, M. J. (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 81, 75-98.
41. Telford, C. W. (1931). Refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1-35.
42. Tombu, M.,& Jolicoeur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274-286.
43. Tombu, M.,& Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3-18.
44. Van Seist, M., Ruthruff, E.,& Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice effects eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268-1283.
45. Virzi, R. A.,& Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory and Cognition, 13, 304-319.
46. Welford, A. T. (1952). The "psychological refractory period" and the timing of high-speed performance - A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 434, 2-19.
47. Welford, A. T. (1967). Single channel operation in the brain. Acta Psychologia, 27, 5-22.
48. Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and Performance (Vol. VIII, pp. 239-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman& D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of Attention (pp. 63-102). Orlando: Academic Press.
50. Wickens, C. D.,& Liu, Y. (1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors, 30(5), 599-616.
51. Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L.,& Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing and output. Human Factors, 25, 227-248.