Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement?

Recent evidence indicates that a central bottleneck causes much of the slowing that occurs when two tasks are performed at the same time. This bottleneck might reflect a structural limitation inherent in the cognitive architecture. Alternatively, the bottleneck might reflect strategic (i.e., voluntary) postponement, induced by instructions to emphasize one task over the other. To distinguish structural limitations from strategic postponement, we examine a new paradigm in which subjects are told to place equal emphasis on both tasks and to emit both responses at about the same time. An experiment using this paradigm demonstrated patterns of interference that cannot easily be attributed to strategic postponement, preparation effects, or conflicts in response production. The data conform closely to the predictions of structural central bottleneck models.

[1]  S. B. Vincent.  The function of the vibrissae in the behavior of the white rat , 1912 .

[2]  Shepherd Ivory Franz.  Review of Rational sex ethics: further investigations and Sane sex life and sane sex living. , 1919 .

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

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

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

[6]  J W Kalsbeek,et al.  Objective measurement of mental load. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[7]  S. Sternberg.  The discovery of processing stages , 1969 .

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

[9]  V. Coltheart,et al.  On Rumelhart's model of visual information-processing. , 1972, Canadian journal of psychology.

[10]  R. Shepard,et al.  CHRONOMETRIC STUDIES OF THE ROTATION OF MENTAL IMAGES , 1973 .

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

[12]  W. Chase,et al.  Visual information processing. , 1974 .

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

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

[15]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[17]  Michael A. Regan,et al.  Division of Attention: The Single-Channel Hypothesis Revisited , 1989 .

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

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

[20]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

[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]  H Pashler,et al.  How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. , 2000, Psychological review.