Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 1385-1399

  Bratzke, Daniel ^a   Ulrich, Rolf ^a   Rolke, Bettina ^a   Schroter, Hannes ^a   Jentzsch, Ines ^b   Leuthold, Hartmut ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 49449119093     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210701536856     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allport, D. A. (1980). Attention and performance. In G. Claxton (Ed.), Cognitive psychology: New directions (pp. 112-153). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
2. De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965-980.
3. Hackley, S. A., & Miller, J. (1995). Response complexity and precue interval effects on the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology, 32, 230-241.
4. Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291-345.
5. Heuer, H. (1996). Coordination. In H. Heuer & S. W. Keele (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action (Vol. 2, pp. 121-180). London: Academic Press.
6. Heuer, H., Kleinsorge, T., Spijkers, W., & Steglich, C. (2004). Intermanual cross-talk effects in unimanual choice reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 993-1018.
7. Jentzsch, I., Leuthold, H., & Ulrich, R. (2007). Decomposing sources of response slowing in the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 610-626.
8. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9. Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167-178.
10. Keele, S. W. (1973). Attention and human performance. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
11. Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387-403.
12. Ketelaars, M. A. C., Khan, M. A., & Franks, I. M. (1999). Dual-task interference as an indicator of on-line programming in simple movement sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1302-1315.
13. Klapp, S. T. (2003). Reaction time analysis of two types of motor preparation for speech articulation: Action as a sequence of chunks. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 35, 135-150.
14. Loftus, G. R. (2002). Analysis, interpretation, and visual presentation of experimental data. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 4. Methodology in experimental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 339-390). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15. Logan, G. D, & Burkell, J. (1986). Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation: A comparison of stop, change, and dual-task paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 549-563.
16. McLeod, P. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 651-667.
17. McLeod, P. (1978). Does probe RT measure central processing demand? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 83-89.
18. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multipletask performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 194, 749-791.
19. Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (in press). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology.
20. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
21. Netick, A., & Klapp, S. T. (1994). Hesitations in manual tracking: A single channel limit in response programming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 766-767.
22. Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358-377.
23. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
24. Pashler, H. ,& Christian, C. (1994). Bottlenecks in planning and producing vocal, manual, and foot responses (Tech. Rep.). La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego, Center for Human Information Processing.
25. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-45.
26. Rinkenauer, G., Ulrich, R., & Wing, A. M. (2001). Brief bimanual force pulses: Correlations between the hands in force and time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1485-1497.
27. Rosenbaum, D. A., Hirndorff, V., & Munroe, E. M. (1987). Scheduling and programming of rapid finger sequences: Tests and elaborations of the hierarchical editor model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 193-203.
28. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C.,&Van Selst, M. V. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3-21.
29. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Hazeltine, E. (2003). Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement? Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 801-816.
30. Sangals, J., Ross, L., & Sommer, W. (2004). Time pressure effects on information processing in overlapping tasks: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Acta Psychologica, 117, 275-294.
31. Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1-18.
32. Sommer, W., Leuthold, H., & Schubert, T. (2001). Multiple bottlenecks in information processing? An electrophysiological examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 81-88.
33. Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117-152). New York: Academic Press.
34. Swinnen, S. P., & Wenderoth, N. (2004). Two hands, one brain: Cognitive neuroscience of bimanual skill. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 18-25.
35. Telford, C. W. (1931). Refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1-36.
36. Ulrich, R., Ruiz Fernández, S., Jentzsch, I., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., & Leuthold, H. (2006). Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions. Psychological Science, 17, 788-793.
37. Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1997). Decision and response in dual-task interference. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 266-307.
38. Verwey, W. B. (1999). Evidence for a multistage model of practice in sequential movement task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1693-1708.
39. Vince, M. (1949). Rapid response sequences and the psychological refractory period. British Journal of Psychology, 40, 23-40.
40. Welford, A. T. (1952). The "psychological refractory period" and the timing of high-speed performance - a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2-19.
41. Welford, A. T. (1959). Evidence of a single-channel decision mechanism limiting performance in a serial reaction task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 193-210.
42. Wickens, C. (1976). The effects of divided attention on information processing in manual tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 1-13.