Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement?

Most studies using the psychological refractory period (PRP) design suggest that dual-task performance is limited by a central bottleneck. Because subjects are usually told to emphasize Task 1, however, the bottleneck might reflect a strategic choice rather than a structural limitation. To evaluate the possibility that central operations can proceed in parallel, albeit with capacity limitations, we conducted two dual-task experiments with equal task emphasis. In both experiments, subjects tended to either group responses together or respond to one task well before the other. In addition, stimulus-response compatibility effects were roughly constant across stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). At the short SOA, compatibility effects also carried over onto response times for the other task. This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with the possibility that subjects share capacity roughly equally between simultaneous central operations. However, this pattern is consistent with the existence of a structural central bottleneck.

[1]  A. Welford THE ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD’ AND THE TIMING OF HIGH‐SPEED PERFORMANCE—A REVIEW AND A THEORY , 1952 .

[2]  Robert Borger,et al.  The Refractory Period and Serial Choice-reactions , 1963 .

[3]  Saul Sternberg,et al.  The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method , 1969 .

[4]  Y. Morrison presented at the Annual Meeting of the , 1970 .

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

[6]  Steven W. Keele,et al.  Attention and human performance , 1973 .

[7]  Peter McLeod,et al.  Parallel processing and the psychological refractory period , 1977 .

[8]  Richard Schweickert,et al.  A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a stroop task , 1978 .

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

[10]  James T. Townsend,et al.  A trichotomy: Interactions of factors prolonging sequential and concurrent mental processes in stochastic discrete mental (PERT) networks , 1989 .

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

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

[13]  R. D. de Jong,et al.  Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[15]  H. Pashler Overlapping Mental Operations in Serial Performance with Preview , 1994, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[16]  Ritske De Jong,et al.  The Role of Preparation in Overlapping-task Performance , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[18]  Jennifer M. Glass,et al.  Adaptive executive control: Flexible multiple-task performance without pervasive immutable response-selection bottlenecks , 1995 .

[19]  E. Ruthruff,et al.  Does mental rotation require central mechanisms? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[21]  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 .

[22]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. , 1998 .

[23]  R. Dell’Acqua,et al.  The Demonstration of Short-Term Consolidation , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[25]  E Ruthruff,et al.  Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[27]  Roger W. Remington,et al.  A dual-task investigation of automaticity in visual word processing. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[29]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Why practice reduces dual-task interference. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[31]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Multiple bottlenecks in information processing? An electrophysiological examination , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  H. Pashler,et al.  Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[34]  David E. Kieras,et al.  VIRTUALLY PERFECT TIME SHARING IN DUAL-TASK PERFORMANCE: , 2001 .

[35]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. , 2001 .

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

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

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

[39]  Gernot Horstmann,et al.  The psychological refractory period of stopping. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[41]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  R. Proctor,et al.  Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.