Objects and Events as Determinants of Parallel Processing in Dual Tasks: Evidence From the Backward Compatibility Effect

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 152-167

  Ellenbogen, Ravid ^a   Meiran, Nachshon ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

Attention; Dual task; Event perception; Gestalt; Parallel processing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; GESTALT THERAPY; HUMAN; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ATTENTION; GESTALT THEORY; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79951537285     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0019958     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Akyürek E.G., Toffanin P., Hommel B. Adaptive control of event integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2008, 34:569-577.
2. Arrington C.M., Logan G.D., Schneider D.W. Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task cuing procedure. Are there " true" task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 2007, 33:484-502.
3. Baylis G.C., Driver J. Visual parsing and response competition: The effect of grouping factors. Perception & Psychophysics 1992, 51:145-162.
4. Ben-Av M.B., Sagi D., Braun J. Visual attention and perceptual grouping. Perception & Psychophysics 1992, 52:277-294.
5. Besner D., Stoltz J.A., Boutilier C. The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1997, 4:221-225.
6. Blake R., Lee S.-H. The role of temporal structure in human vision. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 2005, 4:21-42.
7. Borger R. The refractory period and serial choice-reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1963, 15:1-12.
8. Brown J.W., Reynolds J.R., Braver T.S. A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task-switching. Cognitive Psychology 2007, 55:37-85.
9. Bundesen C. A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review 1990, 97:523-547.
10. Byrne M.D., Anderson J.R. Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review 2001, 108:847-869.
11. Caessens B., Hommel B., Reynvoet B., van der Goten K. Backward-compatibility effects with irrelevant stimulus-response overlap: The case of the SNARC effect. Journal of General Psychology 2004, 131:411-425.
12. Chen Z., Cave K.R. When does visual attention select all features of a distractor?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2006, 32:1452-1464.
13. Cohen-Kdoshay O., Meiran N. The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:1140-1154.
14. Cohen-Kdoshay O., Meiran N. The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex: Flanker compatibility effects that are found in the first trial following S-R instructions. Experimental Psychology 2009, 56:128-133.
15. Creamer L.R. Event uncertainty, psychological refractory period, and human data processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1963, 66:187-194.
16. Cutting J.E. Six tenets for event perception. Cognition 1981, 10:71-78.
17. De Jong R. Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1993, 19:965-980.
18. Dodd M.D., Pratt J. Allocating visual attention to grouped objects. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2005, 17:481-498.
19. Driver J., Baylis G.C. Movement and visual attention: The spotlight metaphor breaks down. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1989, 15:448-456.
20. Duncan J. Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1984, 113:501-517.
21. Duncan J., Humphreys G. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review 1989, 96:433-458.
22. Ellenbogen R., Meiran N. Working memory involvement in dual task performance: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36:968-978.
23. Fagot C., Pashler H. Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1992, 18:1058-1079.
24. Fahle M. Figure-ground discrimination from temporal information. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 1993, 254:199-203.
25. Ferlazzo F., Fagioli S., Sdoia S., Di Nocera F. Goal-completion processes affect the Attentional Blink. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2008, 20:697-710.
26. Ferlazzo F., Lucido S., Di Nocera F., Fagioli S., Sdoia S. Switching between goals mediates the attentional blink effect. Experimental Psychology 2007, 54:89-98.
27. Fischer R., Miller J., Schubert T. Parallel memory retrieval in dual tasks?. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:1685-1699.
28. Gepshtein S., Kubovy M. The emergence of visual objects in space-time. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science USA 2000, 97:8186-8191.
29. Goschke T. Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. Control of cognitive processes: Attention & Performance XVIII 2000, 331-3555. MIT Press, Cambridge. S. Monsell, J. Driver (Eds.).
30. Gratton G., Coles M.G., Donchin E. Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1992, 121:480-506.
31. Hübner R., Druey M. Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting?. Psychological Research 2006, 70:245-261.
32. Hübner R., Druey M. Multiple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task switching. Psychological Research 2008, 72:415-424.
33. Hommel B. Attentional scanning in the selection of central targets from multi-symbol strings. Visual Cognition 1995, 2:119-144.
34. Hommel B. Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1998, 24:1368-1384.
35. Hommel B. The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. Control of cognitive processes: Attention & Performance XVIII 2000, 247-273. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. S. Monsell, J. Driver (Eds.).
36. Hommel B., Eglau B. Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research 2002, 66:260-273.
37. Hommel B., Kessler K., Schmitz F., Gross J., Akyürek E., Shapiro K., Schnitzler A. How the brain blinks: Towards a neurocognitive model of the attentional blink. Psychological Research 2006, 70:425-435.
38. Kahneman D., Henik A. Perceptual organization and attention. Perceptual organization 1981, 181-211. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. M. Kubovy, J.R. Pomerantz (Eds.).
39. Kimchi R., Yeshurun Y., Cohen-Savransky A. Automatic, stimulus-driven attentional capture by objecthood. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14:166-172.
40. Knight J.L., Kantowitz B.H. Speed-accuracy tradeoff in double stimulation: II. Effects on the second response. Memory & Cognition 1976, 4:690-700.
41. Kramer A., Jacobson A. Perceptual organization and focused attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing. Perception & Psychophysics 1991, 50:267-284.
42. Lamers M., Roelofs A. Role of Gestalt grouping in selective attention: Evidence from the Stroop task. Perception & Psychophysics 2007, 69:1305-1314.
43. Lien M.-C., McCann R.S., Ruthruff E., Proctor R.W. Dual-task performance with ideomotor compatible tasks: Is the central bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2005, 31:122-144.
44. Lien M.-C., Proctor R.W. Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2000, 26:1260-1280.
45. Lien M.-C., Ruthruff E., Hsieh S.-L., Yu Y.-T. Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14:133-141.
46. Logan G.D., Delheimer J.A. Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 2001, 27:668-685.
47. Logan G.D., Gordon R.D. Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review 2001, 108:393-434.
48. Logan G.D., Schulkind M.D. Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2000, 26:1072-1090.
49. Los S.A., van den Heuvel C.E. Intentional and unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation during reaction time foreperiods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2001, 27:370-386.
50. Luria R., Meiran N. Increased control demand results in serial processing: Evidence from dual task performance. Psychological Science 2005, 16:833-840.
51. Mack A., Tang B., Tuma R., Kahn S., Rock I. Perceptual organization and attention. Cognitive Psychology 1992, 24:475-501.
52. Meyer D.E., Kieras D.E. A computational theory of executive control processes and human multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review 1997, 104:3-65.
53. Miller J., Ulrich R., Rolke B. On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology 2009, 58:273-310.
54. Miller J.O. Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research 2006, 70:484-493.
55. Miller J.O., Alderton M. Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2006, 32:149-165.
56. Moore C.M., Egeth H. Perception without attention: Evidence of grouping under conditions of inattention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1997, 23:339-352.
57. Navon D., Miller J. Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology 2002, 44:193-251.
58. Olivers C.N.L., Meeter M. A boost and bounce theory of temporal attention. Psychological Review 2008, 115:836-863.
59. Palmer S.E. Common region: A new principle of perceptual grouping. Cognitive Psychology 1992, 24:436-447.
60. Palmer S.E., Brooks J.L., Nelson R. When does grouping happen?. Acta Psychologica 2003, 114:311-330.
61. Pashler H. Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin 1994, 116:220-244.
62. Pashler H., Johnston J.C. Interference between temporally overlapping tasks: Chronometric evidence for central postponement with or without response grouping. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1989, 41A:19-45.
63. Posner M.I. Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1980, 32A:3-25.
64. Prinzmetal W., Banks W.P. Good continuation affects visual detection. Perception & Psychophysics 1977, 21:389-395.
65. Ratcliff R. Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin 1979, 86:446-461.
66. Remington R.W., Folk C.L. A dissociation between attention and selection. Psychological Science 2001, 12:511-515.
67. Rinkenauer G., Ulrich R., Wing A.M. Brief bimanual force pulses: Correlations between the hands in force and time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2001, 27:1485-1497.
68. Ruthruff E.D., Pashler H.E., Hazeltine E. Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement?. Perception & Psychophysics 2003, 65:801-816.
69. Ruthruff E.D., Pashler H.E., Klaassen A. Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2001, 8:73-80.
70. Schneider W., Eschman A., Zuccolotto A. E-Prime user's guide 2002, Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh.
71. Scholl B.J. Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition 2001, 80:1-46.
72. Schubert T., Fischer R., Stelzel C. Response activation and the central bottleneck in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2008, 34:376-397.
73. Stroop J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1935, 18:643-662.
74. Telford C.W. The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1931, 14:1-36.
75. Tombu M., Jolicæur P. A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2003, 29:3-18.
76. Treisman A. Features and objects in visual processing. Scientific American 1986, 255:114-125.
77. Usher M., Donnelly N. Visual synchrony affects binding and segmentation in perception. Nature 1998, 394:179-182.
78. Visser T., Bischof W.F., Di Lollo V. Attentional switching in spatial and non-spatial domains: Evidence from the attentional blink. Psychological Bulletin 1999, 125:458-469.
79. Welford A.T. The " psychological refractory period" and the timing of high-speed performance: A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology 1952, 43:2-19.
80. Welford A.T. Evidence of a single-channel decision mechanism limiting performance in a serial reaction task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1959, 11:193-210.
81. Wenke D., Frensch P.A. The influence of task instruction on action coding: Constraint setting or direct coding?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2005, 31:803-819.
82. Wertheimer M. Untersuchungen zur Lehre yon der Gestalt [Investigations in Gestalt theory]. Psychologishe Forschung 1950, 4:301-350. (Original work published 1923).
83. Woodworth R.S. Experimental psychology 1938, Holt and Company, New York.
84. Zacks J.M., Sargent J.Q. Event perception: A theory and its application to clinical neuroscience. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 2010, 53:253-299.
85. Zacks J.M., Swallow K.M. Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2007, 16:80-84.
86. Zacks J.M., Tversky B. Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin 2001, 127:3-21.