Practice-related reduction of dual-task costs under conditions of a manual-pedal response combination

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 29-44

  Liepelt, Roman ^a,b,c   Fischer, Rico ^c,d   Frensch, Peter A ^c   Schubert, Torsten ^c,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^c HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Dual task; Manual pedal; Practice

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; VERBALIZATION; VISUAL INFORMATION; COST; DUAL TASK COST; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; LEG MOVEMENT; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 79958220888     PISSN: 20445911     EISSN: 2044592X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2011.448025     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the singlechannel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225-235.
2. Beringer, J. (1987-2000). Experimental Runtime System (Software). BeriSoft Corporation, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
3. Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108, 847-869.
4. De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965-980.
5. Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70, 504-513. (Pubitemid 44569523)
6. 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. (Pubitemid 43664898)
7. Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527-545.
8. Hirst, W., Spelke, E. S., Reaves, C. C., Caharack, G., & Neisser, U. (1980). Dividing attention without alternation or automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 98-117.
9. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384. (Pubitemid 128458877)
10. Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167-178.
11. Keele, S. (1973). Attention and human performance. Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
12. Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 192-201.
13. Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulusresponse compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 212-238.
14. Lien, M. C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S., & Yu, Y. T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potential. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 133-141.
15. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434. (Pubitemid 33610302)
16. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65. (Pubitemid 127457178)
17. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749-791.
18. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1999). Precis to a practical unified theory of cognition and action: Some lessons from EPIC computational models of human multiple-task performance. In D. Gropher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 17-88). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435-448.
20. Neumann, O. (1987). Beyond capacity: A functional view of attention. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 361-394). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244. (Pubitemid 24976769)
22. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41 A, 19-45.
23. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C, van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. W. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 280-289. (Pubitemid 37189344)
24. Sangals, J., Wilwer, M., & Sommer, W. (2007). Localising practice effects in dual-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 860-876.
25. 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, 408-425.
26. Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 376-397.
27. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central attentional bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101-108. (Pubitemid 33653516)
28. Spelke, E., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4, 215-230.
29. Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T, & D'Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: An fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 514-525. (Pubitemid 44569524)
30. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 795-810. (Pubitemid 39315633)
31. Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268-1283.