Mental timing and the central attentional bottleneck

Attention and Time

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Ruthruff, Eric ^a   Pashler, Harold ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Attentional bottleneck; Divided attention; Mental processes; Mental timing; Time estimation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921259272     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563456.003.0009     Document Type: Chapter

References (52)

1. Bratzke, D., Ulrich, R., Rolke, B., and Schröter, H. (2008). Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1385-99.
2. Brown, S. W. (1985). Time perception and attention: the effects of prospective versus retrospective paradigms and task demands on perceived duration. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 115-24.
3. Brown, S. W. (1997). Attentional resources in timing: interference effects in concurrent temporal and nontemporal working memory tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1118-40.
4. Byrne, M. D. and Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: the psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108, 847-69.
5. Carrier, L. M. and Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1339-48.
6. Champagne, J. and Fortin, C. (2008). Attention sharing during timing: modulation by processing demands of an expected stimulus. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 630-9.
7. Fortin, C., and Rousseau, R. (1998). Interference from short-term memory processing on encoding and reproducing brief durations. Psychological Research, 61, 269-76.
8. Gibbon, J., Church, R. M., and Meck, W. H., (1984). Scalar timing in memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 423, 52-77.
9. Gottsdanker, R. (1979). A psychological refractory period or an unprepared period? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 208-15.
10. Green, C., Johnston, J. C., and Ruthruff, E. (2007). Recognition of pictures may not require central attentional resources. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society, pp.317-22. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
11. Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., and Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527-45.
12. Hicks, R. E., Miller, G. W., and Kinsbourne, M. (1976). Prospective and retrospective judgments of time as a function of amount of information processed. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 719-30.
13. Johnston, J. C. and McCann, R. W. (2006). On the locus of dual-task interference: Is there a bottleneck at the stimulus classification stage? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 694-719.
14. Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Concurrent response selection demands modulate the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1097-113.
15. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16. Ivry, R. B. and Shlerf, J. E. (2008). Dedicated and intrinsic models of time perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 273-80.
17. Lejeune, H. (1998). Switching or gating? The attentional challenge in cognitive models of psychological time. Behavioural Processes, 44, 127-45.
18. Lien, M.-C., and Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 212-38.
19. Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S.-L., and Yu, Y.-T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 133-41.
20. Luck, S. J. (1998). Sources of dual-task interference: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Psychological Science, 9, 223-7.
21. Maquestiaux, F., Laguë-Beauvais, M., Ruthruff, E., and Bherer, L. (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, 1262-82.
22. Mattes, S. and Ulrich, R. (1998). Directed attention prolongs the perceived duration of a brief stimulus. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 1305-17.
23. McCann, R. S. and Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 471-84.
24. Miller, J., Ulrich, R., and 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.
25. Navon, D. and Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the singlebottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
26. Osman, A. and Moore, C. M. (1993). The locus of dual-task interference: Psychological refractory effects on movement-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1292-312.
27. Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358-77.
28. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-44.
29. Pashler, H. and Christian, C.L. (1994). Bottlenecks in planning and producing vocal, manual and foot responses (Center for Human Information Processing Technical Report). La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego, Center for Human Information Processing. (Available from).
30. Pashler, H. and Johnston, J. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-45.
31. Pashler, H. and Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.) Attention, pp.155-89. Hove: Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.
32. Rammsayer, T. and Ulrich, R. (2005). No evidence for qualitative differences in the processing of short and long temporal intervals. Acta Psychologica, 120, 141-71.
33. Rogers, R. D. and Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-31.
34. Ruthruff, E. and Pashler, H. (2001). Central and peripheral interference in RSVP displays. In K. Shapiro (Ed.), The Limits of Attention: Temporal Constraints on Human Information Processing, pp.100-23. New York: Oxford University Press.
35. Ruthruff, E. and Pashler, H. (2008). Does mental timing require central attention? Unpublished manuscript.
36. Ruthruff, E., Miller, J. O., and Lachmann, T. (1995). Does mental rotation require central mechanisms? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 552-570.
37. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H., and Hazeltine, E. (2003). Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: graded capacity-sharing or central postponement? Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 801-16.
38. Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., and Remington, R. W. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or simply stageshortening? Psychological Research, 70, 125-42.
39. Ruthruff, E., Allen, P. A., Lien, M.-C., and Grabbe, J. (2008). Visual word recognition without central attention: Evidence for greater automaticity with greater reading ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 337-43.
40. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D., Lauber, E., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central attentional bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101-8.
41. Sigman, M. and DeHaene, S. (2005). Parsing a cognitive task: a characterization of the mind's bottleneck. PLoS Biology, 3, e37.
42. Tomasik, D., Ruthruff, E., Allen, P. A., and Lien, M.-C. (2009). Non-automatic emotion perception in a dual-task situation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 282-8.
43. Tombu, M. and Jolicoeur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274-86.
44. Tombu, M. and Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3-18.
45. Ulrich, R., Ruiz Fernández, S., Jentzsch, I., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., and Leuthold, H. (2006). Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions. Psychological Science, 17, 788-93.
46. Ulrich, R., Nitschke, J., and Rammsayer, T. (2006). Crossmodal temporal discrimination: assessing the predictions of a general pacemaker-counter model. Perception and Psychophysics, 68, 1140-52.
47. Van Selst, M. V., Ruthruff, E., and Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268-83.
48. 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.
49. Zakay, D. (1998). Attention allocation policy influences prospective timing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 114-18.
50. Zakay, D. and Block, R. A. (1996). The role of attention in time estimation processes. In M. A. Pastor and J. Artieda (Eds.) Time, internal clocks and movement, pp.143-64. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
51. Zakay, D. and Block, R. A. (1997). Temporal cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 12-16.
52. Zakay, D., Nitzan, D., and Glicksohn, J. (1983). The influence of task difficulty and external tempo on subjective time estimation. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 451-6.