Late backward effects in the refractory period paradigm: Effects of Task 2 execution on Task 1 performance

Psychological Research

Volumn 74, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 378-387

  Fernández, Susana Ruiz ^a   Ulrich, Rolf ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77952421180     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-009-0260-0     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bratzke, D., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (in press). The source of execution-related task-interference: Motor bottleneck or response monitoring? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
2. Bratzke, D., Ulrich, R., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., Jentzsch, I., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 61, 1385-1399.
3. Caessens, B., Hommel, B., Reynvoet, B., & van der Goten, K. (2004). Backward-compatibility effects with irrelevant stimulus-response overlap: The case of the SNARC effect. Journal of General Psychology, 13, 411-425.
4. De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 965-980.
5. Freund, H.-J., & Büdingen, H. J. (1978). The relationship between speed and amplitude of the fastest voluntary contractions of human arm muscles. Experimental Brain Research, 31, 1-12.
6. Giray, M., & Ulrich, R. (1993). Motor coactivation revealed by response force in divided and focused attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1278-1291.
7. 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.
8. Heuer, H. (1995). Models for response-response compatibility: The effects of relation between responses in a choice task. Acta Psychologica, 90, 315-332.
9. Heuer, H. (1996). Coordination. In H. Heuer & S. W. Keele (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action, Vol. 3: Attention (pp. 121-180). London: Academic Press.
10. Heuer, H., Kleinsorge, T., Spijkers, W., & Steglich, C. (2004). Intermanual cross-talk effects in unimanual choice reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 57, 993-1018.
11. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
12. Jentzsch, I., & Dudschig, C. (2009). Why do we slow down after an error? Mechanisms underlying the effects of posterror slowing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 209-218.
13. Jentzsch, I., Leuthold, H., & Ulrich, R. (2007). Decomposing sources of response slowing in the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 610-626.
14. Klapp, S. T. (1995). Motor response programming during simple and choice reaction time: The role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1015-1027.
15. Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 192-201.
16. 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.
17. Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S., & Yu, Y.-T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 133-141.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Miller, J., & Reynolds, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and non-targets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 1126-1142.
23. Miller, J., & Ulrich, R. (2007). Bimanual response grouping in dual-task paradigms. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 61, 999-1019.
24. Mordkoff, J. T., Miller, J., & Roch, A. C. (1996). Absence of coactivation in the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 25-41.
25. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 435-448.
26. Osman, A., Kornblum, S., & Meyer, D. E. (1990). Does motor programming necessitate response execution? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 183-198.
27. Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 358-377.
28. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
29. Pashler, H., & Christian, C. (1994). Bottlenecks in planning and producing vocal, manual, and foot responses. UCSD Center for Human Information Processing Technical Report.
30. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 41, 19-45.
31. Schmidt, R. A., Zelaznik, H. W., Hawkins, B., Frank, J. S., & Quinn, J. T. (1979). Motor-output variability: A theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychological Review, 86, 415-451.
32. Schröter, H. (2006). Programming of time-to-peak force for brief isometric force pulses: Effects on reaction time. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1277-1305.
33. 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.
34. Spijkers, W., & Heuer, H. (1995). Structural constraints on the performance of symmetrical bimanual movements with different amplitudes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 48, 716-740.
35. Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Kleinsorge, T., & van der Loo, H. (1997). Preparation of bimanual movements with same and different amplitudes: Specification interference as revealed by reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 96, 207-227.
36. Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C., & Kleinsorge, T. (2000). Specification of movement amplitudes for the left and right hands: Evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1091-1105.
37. Steglich, C., Heuer, H., Spijkers, W., & Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Bimanual coupling during the specification of isometric forces. Experimental Brain Research, 129, 302-316.
38. Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typing. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117-152). New York: Academic Press.
39. Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 75-121.
40. 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.
41. Ulrich, R., & Wing, A. M. (1991). A recruitment theory of force-time relations in the production of brief force pulses: The parallel force unit model. Psychological Review, 98, 268-294.
42. 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.