A comparison of the psychological refractory period and prioritized processing paradigms: Can the response-selection bottleneck model explain them both?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 1420-1441

  Miller, Jeff ^a   Durst, Moritz ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Attention; Multitasking; Prioritized processing paradigm; Psychological refractory period paradigm

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84942549752     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: 19391277     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000103     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., Hackley, S. A., & Ulrich, R. (2006). The locus of temporal preparation effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 536-542. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193882.
2. Bertelson, P., & Tisseyre, F. (1969). Refractory period of C-reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 122-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026899.
3. Borger, R. (1963). The refractory period and serial choice-reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470216308416546.
4. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357.
5. Bratzke, D., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2009). The source of executionrelated dual-task interference: Motor bottleneck or response monitoring? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1413-1426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015874.
6. Bratzke, D., Ulrich, R., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., Jentzsch, I., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1385-1399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470210701536856.
7. Burle, B., Vidal, F., Tandonnet, C., & Hasbroucq, T. (2004). Physiological evidence for response inhibition in choice reaction time tasks. Brain & Cognition, 56, 153-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.06.004.
8. Caessens, B., Hommel, B., Reynvoet, B., & Van der Goten, K. (2004). Backward-compatibility effects with irrelevant stimulus-response overlap: The case of the SNARC effect. Journal of General Psychology, 131, 411-425.
9. Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. E. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition, 21, 1339-1348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.21.5.1339.
10. Colonius, H. (1990). A note on the stop-signal paradigm, or How to observe the unobservable. Psychological Review, 97, 309-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.309.
11. De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965-980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.19.5.965.
12. De Jong, R. (1995). Perception-action coupling and S-R compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 90, 287-299.
13. De Jong, R., & Sweet, J. B. (1994). Preparatory strategies in overlappingtask performance. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 142-151.
14. Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 399-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034310.
15. Fischer, R., & Hommel, B. (2012). Deep thinking increases task-set shielding and reduces shifting flexibility in dual-task performance. Cognition, 123, 303-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.015.
16. Fischer, R., Miller, J. O., & Schubert, T. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1685-1699. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193502.
17. Gottsdanker, R. (1980). The ubiquitous role of preparation. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior, (pp. 355-372). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
18. Gottsdanker, R., Broadbent, L., & Van Sant, C. (1963). Reaction time to single and to first signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 163-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0044920.
19. Halvorson, K. M., Ebner, H., & Hazeltine, E. (2013). Investigating perfect timesharing: The relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dualtask performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 413-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029475.
20. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.24.5.1368.
21. Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66, 260-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0100-y.
22. Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response-from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132, 30-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001.
23. Jentzsch, I., Leuthold, H., & Ulrich, R. (2007). Decomposing sources of response slowing in the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 610-626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.610.
24. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. H., & Pelli, D. G. (2007). What's new in psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36, 1. (36 ECVP Abstract Suppl.).
25. Ko, Y.-T., & Miller, J. O. (2014). Locus of backward crosstalk effects on Task 1 in a psychological refractory period task. Experimental Psychology, 61, 30-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000224.
26. Leonhard, T., Ruiz Fernández, S., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. O. (2011). Dual-task processing when Task 1 is hard and Task 2 is easy: Reversed central processing order? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 115-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019238.
27. Leonhard, T., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Determinants of central processing order in psychological refractory period paradigms: Central arrival times, detection times, or preparation? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2012-2043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.573567.
28. Lien, M. C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S., & Yu, Y. T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 133-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03194040.
29. Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91, 295-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.295.
30. Logan, G. D., & Delheimer, J. A. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 668-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.3.668.
31. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.26.3.1072.
32. Logan, G. D., Van Zandt, T., Verbruggen, F., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: General and special theories of an act of control. Psychological Review, 121, 66-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035230.
33. Luck, S. J. (1998). Sources of dual-task interference: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Psychological Science, 9, 223-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00043.
34. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2005). Increased control demand results in serial processing: Evidence from dual-task performance. Psychological Science, 16, 833-840. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01622.x.
35. 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, 471-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.18.2.471.
36. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.104.1.3.
37. Miller, J. O. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research, 70, 484-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0011-9.
38. Miller, J. O., & Durst, M. (2014). "Just do it when you get a chance": The effects of a background task on primary task performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 2560-2574. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0730-3.
39. Miller, J. O., 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.08.003.
40. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.
41. Navon, D., & Miller, J. O. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0767.
42. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.
43. Osman, A. M., & Moore, C. M. (1993). The locus of dual-task interference: Psychological refractory effects on movement-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1292-1312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.19.6.1292.
44. Pashler, H. E. (1984). Evidence against late selection: Stimulus quality effects in previewed displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 429-448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.10.3.429.
45. Pashler, H. E. (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 826-842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.16.4.826.
46. Pashler, H. E. (1992). Attentional limitations in doing two tasks at the same time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 44-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep11509734.
47. Pashler, H. E. (1994a). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.116.2.220.
48. Pashler, H. E. (1994b). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 330-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.20.2.330.
49. Pashler, H. E. (1998). Attention. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. Pashler, H. E., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 41, 19-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14640748908402351.
51. Pashler, H. E., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. E. Pashler (Ed.), Attention, (pp. 155-189). Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
52. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The video toolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
53. Ruiz Fernández, S., Leonhard, T., Lachmair, M., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2013). Processing order in dual-tasks when the duration of motor responses varies. Universitas Psychologica, 12(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY12-5.podt.
54. Ruiz Fernández, S., Leonhard, T., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Processing two tasks with varying task order: Central stage duration influences central processing order. Acta Psychologica, 137, 10-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.016.
55. Ruthruff, E. D., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.280.
56. Ruthruff, E. D., Miller, J. O., & Lachmann, T. (1995). Does mental rotation require central mechanisms? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 552-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.552.
57. Ruthruff, E. D., Pashler, H. E., & Hazeltine, E. (2003). Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement? Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 801-816. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03194816.
58. Ruthruff, E. D., Pashler, H. E., & Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 73-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196141.
59. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.376.
60. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00318.
61. Schweickert, R. (1978). A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a Stroop task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18, 105-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(78)90059-7.
62. Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Parsing a cognitive task: A characterization of the mind's bottleneck. PLoS Biology, 3, 334-349.
63. Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: Dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biology, 4, e220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040220.
64. Smith, M. C. (1967a). The psychological refractory period as a function of performance of a first response. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 350-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14640746708400114.
65. Smith, M. C. (1967b). Reaction time to a second stimulus as a function of intensity of the first stimulus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 125-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14640746708400081.
66. Sommer, W., Leuthold, H., & Schubert, T. (2001). Multiple bottlenecks in information processing? An electrophysiological examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 81-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196142.
67. Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0073262.
68. Thomson, S. J., & Watter, S. (2013). Information continuity across the response selection bottleneck: Early parallel Task 2 response activation contributes to overt Task 2 performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 934-953. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0457-6.
69. Thomson, S. J., Watter, S., & Finkelshtein, A. (2010). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations via automatic category-to-response translation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1791-1802. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.7.1791.
70. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.29.1.3.
71. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 795-810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.795.
72. Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. O. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 75-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.06.004.
73. Ulrich, R., Ruiz Fernández, S., Jentzsch, I., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., & Leuthold, H. (2007). Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions. Psychological Science, 17, 788-793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01783.x.
74. Van Boxtel, G. J. M., Molen, M. W. Van der, Jennings, J. R., & Brunia, C. H. M. (2001). A psychophysiological analysis of inhibitory motor control in the stop-signal paradigm. Biological Psychology, 58, 229-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(01)00117-X.
75. Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response-selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 254-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193674.
76. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x.
77. Welford, A. T. (1967). Single-channel operation in the brain. Acta Psychologica, 27, 5-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90040-6.