Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 1685-1699

  Fischer, Rico ^a,c   Miller, Jeff ^b   Schubert, Torsten ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^c DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; LOGIC; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RECALL; SEMANTICS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 36148992543     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193502     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. ALLPORT, D. A., STYLES, E. A., & HSIEH, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and non-conscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
2. ALLPORT, D. A., & WYLIE, G. (2000). Task-switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVII (pp. 357-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. ANDERSON, J. R., TAATGEN, N. A., & BYRNE, M. D. (2005). Learning to achieve perfect timesharing: Architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, and Ivry (2002). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 749-761.
4. BADDELEY, A., LEWIS, V., ELDRIDGE, M., & THOMSON, N. (1984). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 518-540.
5. BARGH, J. A., & FERGUSON, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 925-945.
6. BRYSBAERT, M. (1995). Arabic number reading: On the nature of the numerical scale and the origin of phonological recoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 434-452.
7. BYRNE, M. D., & ANDERSON, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108, 847-869.
8. CARRIER, L. M., & PASHLER, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1339-1348.
9. CRAIK, F. I. M., GOVONI, R., NAVEH- BENJAMIN, M., & ANDERSON, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159-180.
10. DEHAENE, S., & AKHAVEIN, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 314-326.
11. DEHAENE, S., DUPOUX, E., & MEHLER, J. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 626-641.
12. DUNCAN, J. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 216-228.
13. FERGUSON, M. J., & BARGH, J. A. (2004). How social perception can automatically influence behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 33-39.
14. FISCHER, R., & SCHUBERT, T. (in press). Valence processing bypassing the response selection bottleneck? Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Experimental Psychology.
15. HAZELTTNE, E., TEAGUE, D., & IVRY, R. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 527-545.
16. HEIN, G., & SCHUBERT, T. (2004). Aging and input processing in dual-task situations. Psychology & Aging, 19, 416-432.
17. HENIK, A., & TZELGOV, J. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10, 389-395.
18. HOMMEL, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
19. HOMMEL, B., & EGLAU, B. (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66, 260-273.
20. JACOBY, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 513-541.
21. JOLICŒUR, P., TOMBU, M., ORIET, C., & STEVANOVSKI, B. (2002). From perception to action: Making the connection - a tutorial. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 558-586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. LAWSON, R., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & JOLICŒUR, P. (2000). The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming: One manipulation or two? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 568-581.
23. LEVY, J., & PASHLER, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 862-869.
24. LIEN, M. C., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1260-1280.
25. 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.
26. LIEPELT, R. (2006). Learning mechanisms enabling perfect time-sharing in dual tasks. Aachen: Shaker.
27. LOGAN, G. D., & DELHEIMER, J. A. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 668-685.
28. LOGAN, G. D., & GORDON, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434.
29. 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.
30. LURIA, R., & MEIRAN, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory paradigm period. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 556-574.
31. MARTIN, D. W., & KELLY, R. T. (1974). Secondary task performance during directed forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 1074-1079.
32. MCCANN, R. S., & JOHNSTON, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 471-484.
33. MEYER, D. E., & KIERAS, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Pt. 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65.
34. MEYER, D. E., & KIERAS, D. E. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Pt. 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749-791.
35. MILLER, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research, 70, 484-493.
36. MILLER, J., & ALDERTON, M. (2006). Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 149-165.
37. MILLER, J., & REYNOLDS, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 1126-1142.
38. MOSCOVITCH, M. (1992). A neuropsychological model of memory and consciousness. In L. R. Squire & N. Butters (Eds.), Neuropsychology of memory (2nd ed., pp. 5-22). New York: Guilford.
39. MOYER, R. S., & LANDAUER, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519-1520.
40. NAVEH-BENJAMIN, M., CRAIK, F. I. M., PERRETTA, J. G., & TONEV, S. T. (2000). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 609-625.
41. NAVON, D., & MILLER, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 435-448.
42. NAVON, D., & MILLER, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
43. OBERAUER, K., & KLIEGL, R. (2004). Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 689-707.
44. ORIET, C., TOMBU, M., & JOLICŒUR, P. (2005). Symbolic distance affects two processing loci in the number comparison task. Memory & Cognition, 33, 913-926.
45. PARK, D. C., SMITH, A. D., DUDLEY, W. N., & LAFRONZA, V. N. (1989). Effects of age and a divided attention task presented during encoding and retrieval on memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 1185-1191.
46. PASHLER, H. [E.] (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 358-377.
47. PASHLER, H. [E.] (1994). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 330-342.
48. PASHLER, H. E. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. PASHLER, H. [E.], & JOHNSTON, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-45.
50. POSNER, M. I., NISSEN, M. J., & KLEIN, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157-171.
51. ROGERS, R. D., & MONSELL, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
52. ROHRER, D. (1996). On the relative and absolute strength of a memory trace. Memory & Cognition, 24, 188-201.
53. ROHRER, D., & WIXTED, J. T. (1994). An analysis of latency and inter-response time in free recall. Memory & Cognition, 22, 511-524.
54. SCHUBERT, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1-18.
55. SCHUBERT, T., FISCHER, R., & STELZEL, C. (in press). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
56. 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.
57. SCHUMACHER, E. H., SEYMOUR, T. L., GLASS, J. M., LAUBER, E. J., KIERAS, D. E., & MEYER, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time-sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck Psychological Science, 121, 101-108.
58. SUDEVAN, P., & TAYLOR, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 89-103.
59. SZAMEITAT, A. J., SCHUBERT, T., MÜLLER, K., & VON CRAMON, D. Y. (2002). Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMBI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1184-1199.
60. TODOROV, A., & ULEMAN, J. S. (2002). Spontaneous trait inferences are bound to actors' faces: Evidence from a false recognition paradigm. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 1051-1065.
61. TODOROV, A., & ULEMAN, J. S. (2003). The efficiency of binding spontaneous trait inferences to actors' faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 549-562.
62. TOMBU, M., & JOLICŒUR, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274-286.
63. TOMBU, M., & JOLICŒUR, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 3-18.
64. TOMBU, M., & JOLICŒUR, P. (2005). Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 790-802.
65. ULEMAN, J. S. (1999). Spontaneous versus intentional inferences in impression formation. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 141-160). New York: Guilford.
66. WELFORD, A. T. (1952). An apparatus for use in studying serial performance. American Journal of Psychology, 65, 91-97.
67. WOODWARD, T. S., MEIER, B., TIPPER, C., & GRAF, P. (2003). Bivalency is costly: Bivalent stimuli elicit cautious responding. Experimental Psychology, 50, 233-238.