Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation: A comparison of stop, change, and dual-task paradigms.

When a letter and a tone are presented in rapid succession, there is substantial interference if both require an overt response (the dual-task paradigm), but there is very little interference if the tone is a signal to inhibit the response to the letter (the slopping paradigm). These effects were replicated under common stimulus conditions in two experiments, and they were compared with effects in a change paradigm, in which the tone required an overt response, like the dual-task paradigm, but was also a signal to inhibit the response to the letter, like the stopping paradigm. In the change paradigm, the overt response to the tone suffered interference only if subjects failed to inhibit the concurrent response to the letter; inhibiting the response to the letter virtually eliminated the interference. The results suggest that differences in response competition are primarily responsible for differences in interference between the dual-task and stopping paradigms. More generally, the results support response-competition interpretations of dual-task interference.

[1]  Steven W. Keele,et al.  Mechanisms of Attention. , 1978 .

[2]  P McLeod,et al.  Does Probe RT Measure Central Processing Demand? , 1978, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[4]  D. Berlyne.  Uncertainty and conflict: a point of contact between information-theory and behavior-theory concepts. , 1957, Psychology Review.

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

[6]  G. Logan,et al.  Costs and benefits of strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[7]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

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

[9]  M. S. Mayzner,et al.  Human information processing : tutorials in performance and cognition , 1975 .

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

[11]  G. Logan,et al.  On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Bruce K. Britton,et al.  Effects of prior knowledge on use of cognitive capacity in three complex cognitive tasks. , 1982 .

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

[14]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Use of a delayed signal to stop a visual reaction-time response. , 1966 .

[15]  B. Bergum,et al.  Attention and performance IX , 1982 .

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

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

[18]  A. Fuchs,et al.  Effect of mean reaction time on saccadic responses to two-step stimuli with horizontal and vertical components , 1975, Vision Research.

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

[20]  D. Broadbent.  Perception and communication , 1958 .

[21]  D. Meyer,et al.  Attention and Performance XIV , 1973 .

[22]  D. Norman.  Toward a theory of memory and attention. , 1968 .

[23]  A. Ninio.  The effect of first response complexity on the psychological refractory period: A reanalysis , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[24]  G. Logan.  On the ability to inhibit thought and action , 1984 .

[25]  Richard Schweickert,et al.  Models of central capacity and concurrency , 1984 .

[26]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[27]  D REYNOLDS,et al.  EFFECTS OF DOUBLE STIMULATION: TEMPORARY INHIBITION OF RESPONSE. , 1964, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  D E BROADBENT.  Listening between and during practiced auditory distractions. , 1956, British journal of psychology.

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

[30]  R W Proctor,et al.  Secondary task modality, expectancy, and the measurement of attentional capacity. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  On the ability to inhibit simple thoughts and actions: II. Stop-signal studies of repetition priming. , 1985 .

[32]  David W. Martin,et al.  Processing demands of encoding: What does secondary task performance reflect? , 1980 .

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

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

[35]  J. Forester,et al.  Resource allocation and the attentional demands of letter encoding. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[36]  J. Deutsch,et al.  Attention: Some theoretical considerations. , 1963 .

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