What causes residual dual-task interference after practice?

Psychological Research

Volumn 70, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 494-503

  Ruthruff, Eric ^a,c   Hazeltine, Eliot ^b   Remington, Roger W ^a  

^a NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b E11 SSH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

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

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PITCH DISCRIMINATION; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REVERSAL LEARNING; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33750025641     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0012-8     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Byrne, M.D., & Anderson, J.R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time sharing. Psychological Review, 108, 847-869.
2. 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.
3. Hazeltine, E., Ruthuff, E., & Remington, R.W. (2005). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference, (in press).
4. Hazeltine, E., & Ruthuff, E. (2005). Modality-pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research (in press).
5. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
6. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-937.
7. Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 862-869.
8. Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R.W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 212-238.
9. Lien, M.-C., McCann, R.S., 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.
10. Logan, G.D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Meyer, D.E., & Kieras, D.E. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749-791.
14. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J.C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-45.
15. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155-189). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
16. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3-21.
17. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H., & Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 73-80.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J.C., & Remington, R.W. (2005). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Stage-shortening, automatization, or integration? Psychological Research (in press).
21. 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.
22. Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and Performance V (pp. 157-167). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274-286.
24. 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.
25. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 795-810.
26. Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268-1283.
27. 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.
28. 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.