Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion

The model of a single central bottleneck for human information processing is critically examined. Most evidence cited in support of the model has been observed within the overlapping tasks paradigm. It is shown here that most findings obtained within that paradigm and that were used to support the model are also consistent with a simple resource model. The most prominent findings are the millisecond-for-millisecond slope at the left of the RT2-SOA curve, the high RT1-RT2 correlation, the additivity of the effects on RT2 of SOA and of the difficulty of selecting R2, and the washout of the effect of S2 discriminability on RT2 in a dual-task condition. In addition, the asymmetry of the effects of the dual-task requirement on RT1 and RT2 can be accounted for by the resource model provided that it assumes uneven allocation of resources, which is quite reasonable in view of the task asymmetry inherent in the demand characteristics of the paradigm. The same is true for two other findings that appear to support the single-bottleneck model-that in the dual-task condition, the demand of the first task affects equally RT1 and RT2 and that its effect on RT1 is the same as the corresponding effect in the single-task condition. Furthermore, the single-bottleneck model is hard to reconcile with a negative slope at the left of the RT1-SOA curve or a positive slope at the left of the IRI-SOA curve, unless augmented by ancillary assumptions that are yet to be substantiated. Representative data were fit by each of the models using its optimal set of parameters. Both models achieved quite good degrees of fit. It is further argued that since the overlapping tasks paradigm is heavily biased in favor of a speedy reaction to the stimulus that appears first, it is nonoptimal for testing the central bottleneck model. Finally, the bottleneck model is examined in terms of other scientific criteria.

[1]  D. Spalding The Principles of Psychology , 1873, Nature.

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

[3]  H. Woodrow The measurement of attention , 1914 .

[4]  C. W. Telford The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses , 1931 .

[5]  K. J. Craik THEORY OF THE HUMAN OPERATOR IN CONTROL SYSTEMS , 1948 .

[6]  K. J. Craik Theory of the human operator in control systems; man as an element in a control system. , 1948, British Journal of Psychology General Section.

[7]  Hick We,et al.  Man as an element in a control system. , 1951 .

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

[9]  R. Davis,et al.  The Human Operator as a Single Channel Information System , 1957 .

[10]  R. Davis,et al.  The Role of “Attention” in the Psychological Refractory Period , 1959 .

[11]  H. H. Rosenbrock,et al.  An Automatic Method for Finding the Greatest or Least Value of a Function , 1960, Comput. J..

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

[13]  L. R. Creamer,et al.  Event uncertainty, psychological refractory period, and human data processing. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[15]  P. Bertelson Central Intermittency Twenty Years Later * , 1966, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  Thomas C. Way,et al.  Varied and constant intersignal intervals in psychological refractoriness , 1966 .

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

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

[19]  A. Welford Single-channel operation in the brain. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[20]  M. C. Smith,et al.  The Psychological Refractory Period as a Function of Performance of a First Response , 1967, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  P Bertelson,et al.  The Time Course of Preparation* , 1967, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[23]  M. C. Smith,et al.  The effect of varying information on the psychological refractory period , 1969 .

[24]  Thomas J. Triggs,et al.  Capacity sharing and speeded reactions to successive signals. , 1969 .

[25]  Patrick Rabbitt,et al.  Psychological refractory delay and response-stimulus interval duration in serial, choice-response tasks , 1969 .

[26]  Barry H. Kantowitz,et al.  The psychological refractory period effect: Only half the double-stimulation story? , 1970 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[33]  Barry H. Kantowitz,et al.  Testing tapping time-sharing , 1974 .

[34]  B H Kantowitz,et al.  Double stimulation with varying response requirements. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[36]  H Kantowitz,et al.  Testing tapping timesharing, II: Auditory secondary task. , 1976, Acta psychologica.

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

[38]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

[39]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .

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

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

[42]  M. Posner Chronometric explorations of mind , 1978 .

[43]  G Sperling,et al.  The attention operating characteristic: examples from visual search. , 1978, Science.

[44]  Harold L. Hawkins,et al.  Is Time-Sharing a General Capability? , 1979 .

[45]  G. Logan,et al.  On the Use of a Concurrent Memory Load to Measure Attention and Automaticity , 1979 .

[46]  N. Moray Mental workload : its theory and measurement , 1979 .

[47]  R. Gottsdanker A psychological refractory period or an unprepared period , 1979 .

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

[49]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  How is performance limited: Testing the notion of central capacity , 1980 .

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

[51]  G. Stelmach,et al.  Tutorials in Motor Behavior , 1980 .

[52]  John Duncan,et al.  The demonstration of capacity limitation , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[53]  E. Spelke,et al.  Dividing Attention Without Alternation or Automaticity , 1980 .

[54]  G. Claxton Cognitive psychology: New directions , 1980 .

[55]  D Gopher,et al.  Different difficulty manipulations interact differently with task emphasis: evidence for multiple resources. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[56]  James T. Townsend,et al.  The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes , 1983 .

[57]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Varieties of attention , 1984 .

[58]  D Gopher,et al.  On separability of and interference between tracking dimensions in dual-axis tracking. , 1984, Journal of motor behavior.

[59]  R. Ulrich,et al.  A double-response paradigm to study stimulus intensity effects upon the motor system in simple reaction time experiments , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[61]  D. Navon Resources—a theoretical soup stone? , 1984 .

[62]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  Workload: An examination of the concept. , 1986 .

[63]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  In Defence of Resources: On Structures, Energies, Pools and the Allocation of Attention , 1986 .

[64]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Dependence and Independence in Responding to Double Stimulation : A Comparison of Stop , Change , and Dual-Task Paradigms , 1986 .

[65]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[66]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Handbook of perception and human performance , 1986 .

[67]  M. Coles,et al.  Energetics and Human Information Processing , 1986 .

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

[69]  G. Logan Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[70]  W. Hirst,et al.  Characterizing attentional resources. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[71]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[72]  H. Pashler Dissociations and dependencies between speed and accuracy: Evidence for a two-component theory of divided attention in simple tasks , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[73]  David Navon,et al.  The importance of being visible: On the role of attention in a mind viewed as an anarchic intelligence system: II. Application to the field of attention. , 1989 .

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

[75]  David Navon,et al.  The importance of being visible: On the role of attention in a mind viewed as an anarchic intelligence system i basic tenets , 1989 .

[76]  David Navon Exploring two methods for estimating performance tradeoff , 1990 .

[77]  H. Pashler Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention? , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[78]  H Pashler,et al.  Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: distinct attentional mechanisms. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[79]  H Pashler,et al.  Making two responses to a single object: implications for the central attentional bottleneck. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[80]  H Pashler,et al.  Dual-task interference and the cerebral hemispheres. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[81]  D. Gopher The skill of attention control: acquisition and execution of attention strategies , 1993 .

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

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

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

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

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

[87]  Roger W. Remington,et al.  Chronometric Evidence for two Types of Attention , 1995 .

[88]  Pamela S. Tsang,et al.  Resource scarcity and outcome conflict in time-sharing performance , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[89]  A Ehrenstein,et al.  Scheduling Processes in Working Memory: Instructions Control the Order of Memory Search and Mental Arithmetic , 1997, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[90]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Précis to a practical unified theory of cognition and action: Some lessons from EPIC computational models of human multiple-task performance , 1997 .

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

[92]  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 .

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

[94]  Is it processing capacity that is being defined , 1998 .

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

[96]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect , 1999 .

[97]  Jennifer M. Glass,et al.  Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. , 1999 .

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

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

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

[101]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Attention and performance. , 2001, Annual review of psychology.

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

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

[104]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Doing Two Things at the Same Time , 2002 .

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

[106]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Advances in behavioral economics , 2004 .