The source of dual-task limitations: Serial or parallel processing of multiple response selections?

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 75, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1395-1405

  Han, Suk Won ^a,b   Marois, René ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Psychology ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Attention; Dual task performance; Psychological refractory period (PRP)

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL FUNCTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PRODUCTIVITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; REACTION TIME; TASK PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; COGNITION; EFFICIENCY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL PROCESSES; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84885781917     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-013-0513-2     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1339-1348.
2. Dux, P. E., Ivanoff, J., Asplund, C. L., & Marois, R. (2006). Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved fMRI. Neuron, 52, 1109--1120.
3. Dux, P. E., Tombu, M. N., Harrison, S., Rogers, B. P., Tong, F., & Marois, R. (2009). Training improves multitasking performance by increasing the speed of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63, 127-138. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuron. 2009. 06. 005.
4. Fischer, R., & Hommel, B. (2012). Deep thinking increases task-set shielding and reduces shifting flexibility in dual-task performance. Cognition, 123, 303-307. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2011. 11. 015.
5. Fischer, R., Miller, J., & Schubert, T. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1685-1699. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193502.
6. Graham, K. S., Scahill, V. L., Hornberger, M., Barense, M. D., Lee, A. C., Bussey, T. J., & Saksida, L. M. (2006). Abnormal categorization and perceptual learning in patients with hippocampal damage. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 7547-7554. doi: 10. 1523/JNEUROSCI. 1535-06. 2006.
7. Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70, 504-513.
8. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
9. Kamienkowski, J. E., Pashler, H., Dehaene, S., & Sigman, M. (2011). Effects of practice on task architecture: Combined evidence from interference experiments and random-walk models of decision making. Cognition, 119, 81-95.
10. Klemen, J., Verbruggen, F., Skelton, C., & Chambers, C. D. (2011). Enhancement of perceptual representations by endogenous attention biases competition in response selection. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2514-2527. doi: 10. 3758/s13414-011-0188-5.
11. Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: Evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets. Psychological Research, 73, 707-726. doi: 10. 1007/s00426-008-0162-6.
12. Lehle, C., Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Serial or parallel processing in dual tasks: What is more effortful? Psychophysiology, 46, 502-509.
13. Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 862-869.
14. Liepelt, R., Fischer, R., Frensch, P. A., & Schubert, T. (2011). Practice-related reduction of dual-task costs under conditions of a manual-pedal response combination. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 29-44.
15. Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072-1090. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 26. 3. 1072.
16. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2005). Increased control demand results in serial processing: Evidence from dual-task performance. Psychological Science, 16, 833-840. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 2005. 01622. x3.
17. Maquestiaux, F., Laguë-Beauvais, M., Bherer, L., & Ruthruff, E. (2008). Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1262-1282. doi: 10. 3758/MC. 36. 7. 1262.
18. McLeod, P. (1977). Parallel processing and the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 41, 381-391.
19. Meyer, D., & Kieras, D. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of a psychological refractory-period phenomenon. Psychological Review, 104, 749-791. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 104. 4. 749.
20. 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. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance. Interaction of theory and application (pp. 15-88). Cambridge: MIT Press.
21. Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 273-310. doi: 10. 1016/j. cogpsych. 2006. 08. 003.
22. Navon, D. (1984). Resources-A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91, 216-234.
23. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
24. Oriet, C., Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2005). Symbolic distance affects two processing loci in the number comparison task. Memory & Cognition, 33, 913-926. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193085.
25. Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358-377.
26. Pashler, H. (1991). Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: Distinct attentional mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1023-1040.
27. Pashler, H. (1994a). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 116. 2. 220.
28. Pashler, H. (1994b). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 330-342. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 20. 2. 330.
29. Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2012). Better not to deal with two tasks at the same time when stressed? Acute psychosocial stress reduces task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, 557-570. doi: 10. 3758/s13415-012-0098-6.
30. Romei, V., Driver, J., Schyns, P. G., & Thut, G. (2011). Rhythmic TMS over parietal cortex links distinct brain frequencies to global versus local visual processing. Current Biology, 21, 334-337.
31. Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research, 70, 494-503.
32. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. W. (2009). How strategic is the central bottleneck: Can it be overcome by trying harder? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1368-1384.
33. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3-21. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 27. 1. 3.
34. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101-108. doi: 10. 1111/1467-9280. 00318.
35. Spence, C., Kettenmann, B., Kobal, G., & McGlone, F. P. (2001). Shared attentional resources for processing visual and chemosensory information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychologiy, 54, 775-783.
36. Stelzel, C., & Schubert, T. (2011). Interference effects of stimulus-response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness. Psychological Research, 75, 476-490.
37. Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D'Esposito, M. (2005). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: An fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 514-525. doi: 10. 1007/s00426-005-0013-7.
38. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274-286.
39. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3-18. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 29. 1. 3.
40. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 795-810.
41. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2005). Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 790-802.
42. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modelling of 1240 elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. 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.