Temporal-range estimation of multiple objects: Evidence for an early bottleneck

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 137, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 76-82

  Baurès, Robin ^a,b   Oberfeld, Daniel ^a   Hecht, Heiko ^a  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITÉ GUSTAVE EIFFEL   (France)

Author keywords

Attention; Multiple objects; Perceptual bottleneck; Psychological refractory period; Sperling paradigm; Time to contact estimation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; REACTION TIME; TIME; TIME PERCEPTION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOTION PERCEPTION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TIME FACTORS; TIME PERCEPTION;

EID: 79954819919     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Baurès R., Oberfeld D., Hecht H. Judging the contact-times of multiple objects: Evidence for asymmetric interference. Acta Psychologica 2010, 134:363-371.
2. Bratzke D., Rolke B., Ulrich R. The source of execution-related task-interference: Motor bottleneck or response monitoring?. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 2009, 35:1413-1426.
3. Brown S.W. Attentional resources in timing: Interference effects in concurrent temporal and nontemporal working memory tasks. Perception & Psychophysics 1997, 59(7):1118-1140.
4. Brown S.W., Stubbs D.A., West A.N. Attention, multiple timing, and psychophysical scaling of temporal judgments. Towards bridging the gap 1991, vol. 66:129-140. Kluwer Academic Publ, Dordrecht. F. Macar, V. Pouthas, W.J. Friedman (Eds.).
5. Champagne J., Fortin C. Attention sharing during timing: Modulation by processing demands of an expected stimulus. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70(4):630-639.
6. De Jong R. Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 1993, 19:965-980.
7. DeLucia P.R., Liddell G.W. Cognitive motion extrapolation and cognitive clocking in prediction motion tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24(3):901-914.
8. DeLucia P.R., Novak J.B. Judgments of relative time-to-contact of more than two approaching objects: Toward a method. Perception & Psychophysics 1997, 59(6):913-928.
9. Fernandez S.R., Ulrich R. Late backward effects in the refractory period paradigm: effects of Task 2 execution on Task 1 performance. Psychological Research 2010, 74:378-387.
10. Gray R. The use and misuse of visual information for "go/no-go" decisions in driving. Contemporary issues in traffic research and road user safety 2005, 125-133. Nova Science Publishers, New York. D. Hennessy, D. Wiesenthal (Eds.).
11. Gray R., Regan D. Perceptual processes used by drivers during overtaking in a driving simulator. Human Factors 2005, 47:394-417.
12. Hecht H., Savelsbergh G.J.P. Time-to-contact 2004, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
13. Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 1988, 75(4):800-802.
14. Huynh H., Feldt L.S. Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomised block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics 1976, 1:69-82.
15. Keselman H.J. Stepwise and simultaneous multiple comparison procedures of repeated-measures means. Journal of Educational Statistics 1994, 19(2):127-162.
16. Maquestiaux F., Laguë-Beauvais M., Ruthruff E., Bherer L. Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36(7):1262-1282.
17. Maquestiaux F., Laguë-Beauvais M., Ruthruff E., Hartley A., Bherer L. Learning to bypass the central bottleneck: declining automaticity with advancing age. Psychology and Aging 2010, 25(1):177-192.
18. Novak, J. L. B. (1998). Judgments of absolute time-to-contact in multiple object displays: Evaluating the role of cognitive processes in arrival-time judgments (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 58, 5679.
19. Oberfeld D., Hecht H. Effects of a moving distractor object on time-to-contact judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34(3):605-623.
20. Pashler H. Dual-task interference in simple tasks - Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin 1994, 116(2):220-244.
21. Regan D., Vincent A. Visual processing of looming and time to contact throughout the visual field. Vision Research 1995, 35(13):1845-1857.
22. Schiff W., Detwiler M.L. Information used in judging impending collision. Perception 1979, 8(6):647-658.
23. Sperling G. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 1960, 74(11):1-30.
24. Taatgen N.A., van Rijn H., Anderson J. An integrated theory of prospective time interval estimation: The role of cognition, attention, and learning. Psychological Review 2007, 114:577-598.
25. Tresilian J.R. Hitting a moving target: perception and action in the timing of rapid interceptions. Perception & Psychophysics 2005, 67:129-149.
26. Ulrich R., Ruiz Fernandez S., Jentzsch I., Rolke B., Schröter H., Leuthold H. Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions. Psychological Science 2006, 17:788-793.
27. van Rijn H., Taatgen N.A. Timing of multiple overlapping intervals: How many clocks do we have?. Acta Psychologica 2008, 129(3):365-375.
28. Wing A.M. The long and short of timing in response sequences. Tutorials in motor behavior 1980, 468-486. North-Holland Pub. Co, Amsterdam, New York. G.E. Stelmach, J. Requin (Eds.).