Interference between switched tasks

Interference between tasks in a task-switching situation was interpreted in terms of theoretical models of time-sharing. Controlled processing of two separate tasks in a time-sharing situation was hypothesized to require a strategy of management whose ease of execution depends on the complexity of the task involved. Switching from one task to the other requires activation • of the resources required for performance of the new task and inhibition of the resources engaged in the first task. Failures in either of these two processes will interfere with the performance of the second task. This hypothesis was tested in a situation in which subjects had to switch from one detection task to another. Interruption of one task to carry out another task increased both processing time and error rate in the second task. The types of error (intrusions, confusions and omissions) were considered to be specific to timesharing.

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

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

[3]  W. B. Knowles,et al.  Operator Loading Tasks , 1963, Human factors.

[4]  A. Treisman.  SELECTIVE ATTENTION IN MAN. , 1964, British medical bulletin.

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

[6]  George E. Briggs,et al.  On the locus of the divided-attention effects , 1972 .

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

[8]  D. Kahneman.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

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

[10]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Explorations in Cognition , 1975 .

[11]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  SOME PRINCIPLES OF MEMORY SCHEMATA , 1975 .

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

[13]  R. P. Fishburne,et al.  Channel Capacity and Locus of Interference under Dual Task Conditions , 1977 .

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

[15]  P. McLeod.  A Dual Task Response Modality Effect: Support for Multiprocessor Models of Attention , 1977 .

[16]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[17]  I L Goldstein,et al.  Speed and Load Stress as Determinants of Performance in a Time Sharing Task , 1978, Human factors.

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

[19]  D. Norman.  Categorization of action slips. , 1981 .

[20]  C D Wickens,et al.  Multiple Resources, Task-Hemispheric Integrity, and Individual Differences in Time-Sharing , 1981, Human factors.

[21]  Jacques Leplat.  Les situations de travail, terrains d’avenir pour la psychologie , 1982 .

[22]  D. Damos,et al.  Individual Differences in Multiple-Task Performance as a Function of Response Strategy , 1983, Human factors.

[23]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[24]  D. Damos,et al.  The effect of varying stimulus and response modes and asymmetric transfer on the dual-task performance of discrete tasks. , 1986, Ergonomics.

[25]  H. Rollins,et al.  Multiple resources: The concepts of task difficulty and response requirements , 1986 .

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

[27]  A. Friedman,et al.  Dividing attention between the hands and the head: Performance trade-offs between rapid finger tapping and verbal memory. , 1988 .