How is performance limited: Testing the notion of central capacity

Abstract Two-dimensional pursuit tracking task was employed in three experiments designed to test three predictions of the central capacity model of performance limitations under time-sharing conditions. These are the predicted effects of change in task difficulty, task emphasis and their interaction. Each of simultaneously performed tracking dimensions (horizontal and vertical) was treated as a separate task and manipulated independently. Tracking difficulty on each dimension and their relative emphasis were jointly manipulated. When frequency or velocity of target movement served as difficulty parameters, and control complexity was relatively low, tradeoffs between dimensions in different priority conditions were small and task difficulty had no effect on the performance of the concurrent task, neither did it interact with task emphasis. When control complexity was increased and in addition was manipulated as the difficulty parameter, linear tradeoff was observed and difficulty seemed to interact with task emphasis. These results cannot be easily accommodated within a strict central capacity model. An alternative interpretation based on a multiple capacity approach is outlined.

[1]  R C Williges,et al.  Varying the type and number of adaptive variables in continuous tracking. , 1975, Journal of motor behavior.

[2]  Donald E. Broadbent,et al.  Decision and stress , 1971 .

[3]  Barry H. Kantowitz,et al.  On experimenter-limited processes. , 1976 .

[4]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  Control Theory Measures of Tracking as Indices of Attention Allocation Strategies , 1977 .

[5]  N Moray,et al.  Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[6]  C D Wickens,et al.  The Event-Related Brain Potential as an Index of Display-Monitoring Workload , 1980, Human factors.

[7]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[8]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  On the Economy of the Human Processing System: A Model of Multiple Capacity. , 1977 .

[9]  E. C. Poulton,et al.  Tracking skill and manual control , 1974 .

[10]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  On the Analysis of Performance Operating Characteristics. , 1976 .

[11]  E. Donchin,et al.  COGNITIVE PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY: THE ENDOGENOUS COMPONENTS OF THE ERP , 1978 .

[12]  D. Allport,et al.  On the Division of Attention: A Disproof of the Single Channel Hypothesis , 1972, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  Manipulating the Conditions of Training in Time-Sharing Performance , 1977 .

[15]  Andries F. Sanders,et al.  Some Remarks on Mental Load , 1979 .

[16]  M. S. Mayzner,et al.  Cognition And Reality , 1976 .

[17]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Structure of Attentional Resources , 1980 .

[18]  Robert Arthur North Task Components and Demands as Factors in Dual-Task Performance. , 1977 .

[19]  D. Trumbo,et al.  Secondary task interference in the performance of tracking tasks. , 1967 .

[20]  Stephen J. Boies,et al.  Components of attention. , 1971 .

[21]  B. Kerr,et al.  Processing demands during mental operations , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  Response Surface Methodology Central-Composite Design Modifications for Human Performance Research , 1973 .

[23]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  Tracking in Two Dimensions as a Function of Dimension Priorities and Tracking Difficulty , 1977 .