Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks

In this dual-task study, we applied both cross-talk logic and locus-of-slack logic to test whether participants can retrieve semantic categories in Task 2 in parallel to Task 1 bottleneck processing. Whereas cross-talk logic can detect parallel memory retrieval only in conditions of categorical overlap between tasks, the locus-of-slack approach is independent of such restrictions. As was expected, using the cross-talk logic, we found clear evidence for parallel retrieval of semantic categories when there was categorical overlap between tasks (Experiment 1). Locus-of-slack-based evidence for parallel semantic retrieval was found, however, both in conditions with (Experiment 1) and in those without (Experiment 2) categorical overlap between tasks. Crucially, however, increasing the demand for resources required to switch from Task 1 to Task 2 eliminated even the locus-ofslack-based evidence for parallel memory retrieval during the psychological refractory period (Experiment 3). Together, our results suggest that parallel retrieval is not bound to conditions of categorical overlap between tasks but, instead, is contingent upon resources needed for switching between tasks (e.g., Oriet, Tombu, & Jolicoeur, 2005).

[1]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  R. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  D. V. von Cramon,et al.  Localization of Executive Functions in Dual-Task Performance with fMRI , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[6]  H. Pashler,et al.  Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference? , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  R W Proctor,et al.  Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  R. D. Gordon,et al.  Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. , 2001, Psychological review.

[9]  M. Ferguson,et al.  How social perception can automatically influence behavior , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  D E Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. , 1997, Psychological review.

[11]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Serial modules in parallel: the psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. , 2001, Psychological review.

[12]  Morris Moscovitch,et al.  A Neuropsychological Model of Memory and Consciousness , 2008 .

[13]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference , 1992 .

[14]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  G W Humphreys,et al.  The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming: one manipulation or two? , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Richard T. Kelly,et al.  Secondary task performance during directed forgetting , 1974 .

[17]  F. Craik,et al.  The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  D. A. Taylor,et al.  The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  H. Pashler.  The Psychology of Attention , 1997 .

[20]  H Pashler,et al.  Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  L. Jacoby.  A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory , 1991 .

[22]  Alexander Todorov,et al.  Spontaneous trait inferences are bound to actors' faces: evidence from a false recognition paradigm. , 2002 .

[23]  G D Logan,et al.  Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  D. Rohrer.  On the relative and absolute strength of a memory trace , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[25]  Alexander Todorov,et al.  The efficiency of binding spontaneous trait inferences to actors’ faces , 2003 .

[26]  Jennifer M. Glass,et al.  Virtually Perfect Time Sharing in Dual-Task Performance: Uncorking the Central Cognitive Bottleneck , 2001, Psychological science.

[27]  J. Duncan.  Divided attention: the whole is more than the sum of its parts. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  M. Posner,et al.  Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. , 1976, Psychological review.

[29]  Pierre Jolicœur,et al.  All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon , 2002, Psychological research.

[30]  A. D. Smith,et al.  Effects of age and a divided attention task presented during encoding and retrieval on memory. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  Eliot Hazeltine,et al.  Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  B. Hommel.  Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Aging and input processing in dual-task situations. , 2004, Psychology and aging.

[34]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  Symbolic distance affects two processing loci in the number comparison task , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[35]  S. Monsell,et al.  Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. , 1995 .

[36]  G D Logan,et al.  Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[37]  D. Navon,et al.  Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies , 2006, Psychological research.

[39]  H Pashler,et al.  Attentional limits in memory retrieval. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[40]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance , 2002, Psychological research.

[41]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Valence processing bypassing the response selection bottleneck? Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2008, Experimental psychology.

[42]  J. Danckert.  Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action: Attention and Performance XIX Wolfgang Prinz, Bernhard Hommel (Eds.), Oxford University Press, 2002, Price: £ 65.00, ISBN: 0-19-851069 , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[43]  J. Uleman,et al.  Spontaneous versus intentional inferences in impression formation , 1999 .

[44]  ROBERT S. MOYER,et al.  Time required for Judgements of Numerical Inequality , 1967, Nature.

[45]  M. Brysbaert.  Arabic number reading: On the nature of the numerical scale and the origin of phonological recoding. , 1995 .

[46]  Stefanie Schuch,et al.  The costs of changing the representation of action: response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[47]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  Ann Reynolds,et al.  The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  M. Ferguson,et al.  Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[50]  Larry R. Squire,et al.  Neuropsychology of memory, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[51]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks , 1999 .

[52]  Welford At.  An apparatus for use in studying serial performance. , 1952 .

[53]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Chronometric Evidence for Central Postponement in Temporally Overlapping Tasks , 2003 .

[54]  H. Pashler,et al.  Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[55]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. , 1984 .

[56]  A. Henik,et al.  Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[57]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Learning to achieve perfect timesharing: architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, and Ivry (2002). , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[58]  J. Wixted,et al.  An analysis of latency and interresponse time in free recall , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[59]  M Naveh-Benjamin,et al.  The Effects of Divided Attention on Encoding and Retrieval Processes: The Resiliency of Retrieval Processes , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[60]  D. Alan Allport,et al.  SHIFTING INTENTIONAL SET - EXPLORING THE DYNAMIC CONTROL OF TASKS , 1994 .

[61]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[62]  T. Woodward,et al.  Bivalency is costly: bivalent stimuli elicit cautious responding. , 2003, Experimental psychology.

[63]  S Dehaene,et al.  Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[64]  Roy Luria,et al.  Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[65]  David E. Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. , 1997 .

[66]  D. Navon,et al.  Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[67]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[68]  Roman Liepelt.  Learning Mechanisms Enabling Perfect Time-sharing in Dual Tasks , 2006 .