A Central Capacity Sharing Model of Dual-Task Performance

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 3-18

  Tombu, Michael ^a   Jolicoæur, Pierre ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RESPONSE TIME; REVIEW;

HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 85047691739     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.3     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523-547.
2. Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Expertmental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1339-1348.
3. DeJong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965-989.
4. DeJong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 2-25.
5. Duncan, J. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 216-228.
6. Herman, L., & Kantowitz, B. (1970). The psychological refractory period effect: Only half the double-stimulus story? Psychological Bulletin, 73, 74-88.
7. Herman, L., & McCauley, M. (1969). Delay in responding to the first stimulus in the "psychological refractory period" experiment: Comparisons with delay produced by a second stimulus not requiring a response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 344-350.
8. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
9. Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (in press). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research.
10. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11. Logan, G. (1978). Attention in character-classification tasks: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 32-63.
12. Logan, G., & Delheimer, J. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 668 -685.
13. Logan, G., & Gordon, R. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434.
14. Logan, G., & Schulkind, M. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072-1090.
15. McCann, R., & Johnston, J. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 471-484.
16. McLeod, P. (1977). Parallel processing and the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 41, 381-391.
17. Meyer, D., & Kieras, D. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65.
18. Meyer, D., & Kieras, D. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of a psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749-791.
19. Miller, J., & Bonnel, A. M. (1994). Switching or sharing in dual-task line-length discrimination? Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 431-446.
20. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214-255.
21. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
22. Nosofsky, R., & Palmeri, T. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266-300.
23. Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 826-842.
24. Pashler, H. (1991). Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: Distinct attentional mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1023-1040.
25. Pashler, H. (1994a). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
26. Pashler, H. (1994b). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 330-342.
27. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-45.
28. Posner, M., & Boies, S. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391-408.
29. Schumacher, E., Seymour, T., Glass, J., Fencsik, D., Lauber, E., Kieras, D., & Meyer, D. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101-108.
30. Telford, C. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1-35.
31. Tombu, M., & Jolicoæur, P. (2000, November). Is the PRP effect due to a strategic or structural bottleneck? Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA.
32. Tombu, M., & Jolicoæur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274-286.
33. Van Selst, M., & Jolicoæur, P. (1997). Decision and response in dual-task interference. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 266-307.
34. Welford, A. (1952). The "psychological refractory period" and the timing of high speed performance: A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2-19.