Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance

Psychological Research

Volumn 75, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 513-524

  Israel, Moran ^a   Cohen, Asher ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COLOR VISION; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD;

COLOR PERCEPTION; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL;

EID: 80355147020     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0359-y     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24(2), 225-235.
2. Bertelson, P. (1966). Central intermittency twenty years later. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(2), 153-163.
3. Cohen, A., & Feintuch, U. (2002). The dimensional-action system: A distinct visual system. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 587-608). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Cohen, A., Israel, M., Zuckerman, M., & Glicksohn, A. (2011). Components of dual task performance: Modularity across perception and action, memory and strategy. Unpublished data.
5. Cohen, A., & Shoup, R. (1997). Perceptual dimensional constraints in response selection processes. Cognitive Psychology, 32(2), 128-181.
6. De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965-980.
7. Feintuch, U., & Cohen, A. (2002). Visual attention and coactivation of response decisions for features from different dimensions. Psychological Science, 13(4), 361-369.
8. Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70(6), 504-513.
9. 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(4), 291-345.
10. Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 527-545.
11. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368-1384.
12. Johnston, J. C., & Pashler, H. (1990). Close binding of identity and location in visual feature perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 16(4), 843-856.
13. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Engiewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
14. Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 862-869.
15. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393-434.
16. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2005). Increased control demand results in serial processing: Evidence from dual-task performance. Psychological Science, 16(10), 833-840.
17. Magen, H., & Cohen, A. (2007). Modularity beyond perception: Evidence from single task interference paradigms. Cognitive Psychology, 55(1), 1-36.
18. Magen, H., & Cohen, A. (2010). Modularity beyond perception: Evidence from the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 395-414.
19. McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 18(2), 471-484.
20. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3-65.
21. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220-244.
22. Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: MIT Press.
23. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. E. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155-189). Hove: Psychology Press/Erlbaum.
24. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101-130.
25. Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled & automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27(3), 525-559.
26. 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(2), 408-425.
27. Schumacher, E. H., Lauber, E. J., Glass, J. M., Zurbriggen, E. I., Gmeindl, L., Kieras, D. E., et al. (1999). Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 25(3), 791-814.
28. Schumacher, E. H., Schwarb, H., Lightman, E., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task. Psychological Research.
29. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101-108.
30. Shiffrin, R. M. (1988). Attention. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzay, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Steven's handbook of experimental psychology: Volume 2. Learning and Cognition (pp. 739-811). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
31. Smith, M. C. (1967). Theories of the psychological refractory period. Psychological Bulletin, 67(3), 202-213.
32. Stelzel, C., Brandt, S. A., & Schubert, T. (2009). Neural mechanisms of concurrent stimulus processing in dual tasks. Neuroimage, 48(1), 237-248.
33. 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(6), 514-525.
34. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011) The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research. doi: 10. 1007/s00426-011-0353-4.
35. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66(4), 274-286.
36. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3-18.
37. van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1997). Decision and response in dual-task interference. Cognitive Psychology, 33(3), 266-307.
38. Welford, A. T. (1952). An apparatus for use in studying serial performance. The American Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 91-97.
39. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Visual search in continuous, naturalistic stimuli. Vision Research, 34(9), 1187-1195.