Task-set inertia and memory-consolidation bottleneck in dual tasks

Psychological Research

Volumn 70, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 448-458

  Koch, Iring ^a   Rumiati, Raffaella I ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b SISSA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

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

ATTENTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MENTAL RECALL; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PITCH DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SET (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 33750026159     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0020-8     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan & A. M. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273-296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Arnell, K. M., & Duncan, J. (2002). Separate and shared sources of dual-task cost in stimulus identification and response selection. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 105-147.
3. Azuma, R., Prinz, W., & Koch, I. (2004). Dual-task slowing and effects of cross-task compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 693-713.
4. Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1339-1348.
5. De Jong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48 A, 2-25.
6. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
7. Hommel, B., & Doeller, C. F. (2005). Selection and consolidation of objects and actions. Psychological Research, 69, 157-166.
8. Jolicoeur, P., & Dell'Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138-202.
9. Jolicoeur, P., & Dell'Acqua, R. (1999). Attentional and structural constraints on visual encoding. Psychological Research, 62, 154-164.
10. Jolicoeur, P., Tombu, M., Oriet, C., & Stevanovski, B. (2002). From perception to action: Making the connection. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 558-586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2005). Response preparation and code overlap in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition (in press).
12. Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 192-201.
13. Koch, I., Metin, B., & Schuch, S. (2003). The role of temporal uncertainty for process interference and code overlap in perception-action dual tasks. Psychological Research, 67, 244-252.
14. 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.
15. Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1072-1090.
16. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 556-574.
17. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in cognitive science, 7, 134-140.
18. Müsseier, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 861-872.
19. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dualtask interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 435-448.
20. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
21. Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 277-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
23. Rumiati, R. I., & Humphreys, G. W. (1998). Recognition by action: Dissociating visual and semantic routes to action in normal observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 631-647.
24. 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 & Performance, 30, 566-582.
25. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). Can blindness to response-compatible stimuli be observed in the absence of a response? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 431-440.
26. Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 538-552). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 830-846.
28. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8, 769-800.