Allocation of effort as a function of payoffs for individual tasks in a multitasking environment

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 705-716

  Wang, Dongyuan Debbie ^a   Proctor, Robert W ^b   Pick, David F ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PURDUE UNIVERSITY CALUMET   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HUMAN; MATHEMATICS; MEMORY; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REWARD;

ATTENTION; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; MATHEMATICS; MEMORY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REWARD; SOFTWARE;

EID: 68949183445     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.3.705     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Alluisi, E. A. (1967). Methodology in the use of synthetic tasks to assess complex performance. Human Factors, 9, 375-384.
2. Catania, A. C. (1963). Concurrent performances: Reinforcement interaction and response independence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 253-263.
3. Elsmore, T. F. (1994). SYNWORK1: A PC-based tool for assessment of performance in a simulated work environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26, 421-426.
4. Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Siegel, D. (1989). Practice under changing priorities: An approach to the training of complex skills. Acta Psychologica, 71, 147-177. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(89)90007-3
5. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of responses as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
6. Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Behavior, reinforcement and utility. Psychological Science, 4, 217-224. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00203.x
7. Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2008). Task prioritization in multitasking during driving: Opportunity to abort a concurrent task does not insulate braking responses from dual-task slowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 507-525. doi:10.1002/acp.1378
8. Logue, A. W., Forzano, L. B., & Tobin, H. (1992). Independence of reinforcer amount and delay: The generalized matching law and self-control in humans. Learning & Motivation, 23, 326-342. doi:10.1016/0023-9690(92)90012-B
9. Morgan, B. B., Jr., & Alluisi, E. A. (1972). Synthetic work: A methodology for assessment of human performance. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 35, 835-845.
10. Proctor, R. W., Wang, D. Y., & Pick, D. F. (1998). An empirical evaluation of the SYNWORK1 multiple-task work environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 287-305.
11. Salthouse, T. A., Hambrick, D. Z., Lukas, K. E., & Dell, T. C. (1996). Determinants of adult age differences on synthetic work performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 305-329. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.2.4.305
12. Sit, R. A., & Fisk, A. D. (1999). Age-related performance in a multiple-task environment. Human Factors, 41, 26-34. doi:10.1518/001872099779577345
13. Wang, D.-Y. D., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2007). Acquisition and transfer of attention-allocation strategies in a multiple-task work environment. Human Factors, 49, 995-1004. doi:10.1518/001872007X249866
14. Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Wickens, C. D., & McCarley, J. S. (2008). Applied attention theory. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.