Motor Limitation in Dual-Task Processing Under Ballistic Movement Conditions

The standard bottleneck model of the psychological refractory period (PRP) assumes that the selection of the second response is postponed until the first response has been selected. Accordingly, dual-task interference is attributed to a single central-processing bottleneck involving decision and response selection, but not the execution of the response itself. In order to critically examine the assumption that response execution is not part of this bottleneck, we systematically manipulated the temporal demand for executing the first response in a classical PRP paradigm. Contrary to the assumption of the standard bottleneck model, this manipulation affected the reaction time for Task 2. Specifically, reaction time for Task 2 increased with execution time for Task 1. This carryover effect from Task 1 to Task 2 provides evidence for the notion that response execution can be part of the processing bottleneck.

[1]  L. Karlin,et al.  Effects of Number of Alternatives on the Psychological Refractory Period , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[3]  David E. Meyer,et al.  Speed—Accuracy Tradeoffs in Aimed Movements: Toward a Theory of Rapid Voluntary Action , 2018, Attention and Performance XIII.

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

[5]  R. Thouless.  Experimental Psychology , 1939, Nature.

[6]  H. Pashler.  Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  A. Sanders.  20 Stage Analysis of Reaction Processes , 1980 .

[8]  P. Killeen,et al.  An Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Significance Tests , 2005, Psychological science.

[9]  R. Marois,et al.  Capacity limits of information processing in the brain , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  M. Vince.  Rapid response sequences and the psychological refractory period. , 1949, British journal of psychology.

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

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

[13]  Werner Sommer,et al.  Time pressure effects on information processing in overlapping tasks: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. , 2004, Acta psychologica.

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

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

[16]  A M Wing,et al.  A recruitment theory of force-time relations in the production of brief force pulses: the parallel force unit model. , 1991, Psychological review.

[17]  W. G. Koster,et al.  The psychological refractory period , 1966 .

[18]  C. L. M..  The Psychology of Attention , 1890, Nature.

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

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

[21]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  Decision and Response in Dual-Task Interference , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[22]  H. Pashler,et al.  Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement? , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  H. Zelaznik,et al.  Motor-output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. , 1979, Psychological review.

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

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

[26]  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 .

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

[28]  S. Luck.  Sources of Dual-Task Interference: Evidence From Human Electrophysiology , 1998 .

[29]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Provides New Constraints on Theories of the Psychological Refractory Period , 2004, Psychological science.

[30]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Bottlenecks in planning and producing vocal, manual and foot responses , 1994 .