Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Controlling and Coordinating Multiple Actions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Action Control

  • 1011 Accesses

Abstract

Everyday actions often overlap in time and require frequent shifts between different tasks. This chapter explains how multiple tasks are controlled and coordinated, how and to what degree performance suffers from shifting and multitasking, and which particular cognitive processes are affected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltá & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance (Conscious and nonconscious information processing, Vol. XV, pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, D. A., & Wylie, G. (2000). ‘Task-switching’, stimulus-response bindings and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance (Control of Cognitive Processes, Vol. XVIII, pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baars, B. J. (1980). Eliciting predictable speech errors in the laboratory. In V. A. Fromkin (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand (pp. 307–318). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1339–1348.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance (Control of cognitive processes, Vol. XVIII, pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R., Berendsen, E., & Cools, R. (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: Dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. Acta Psychologica, 101, 379–394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, P. (1981). Algorithms and selective attention. Memory & Cognition, 9, 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J. (1978). Response selection in spatial choice reaction: Further evidence against associative models. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 429–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1941). A critical review of the concept of set in contemporary experimental psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 781–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopher, D., & Sanders, A. F. (1984). S-Oh-R: Oh stages! Oh resources! In W. Prinz & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and motor processes (pp. 231–253). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998a). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368–1384.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998b). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivry, R. B., Franz, E. A., Kingstone, A., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). The psychological refractory period effect following callosotomy: Uncoupling of lateralized response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 463–480.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14, 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolicœur, P. (1999). Capacity demands of accessing short-term memory. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for Brain, Behaviour, and Cognitive Science, June 18–19, Edmonton, AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolicœur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicœur, P., Tombu, M., Oriet, C., & Stevanovski, B. (2002). From perception to action: Making the connection. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance (Common mechanisms in perception and action, Vol. XIX, pp. 558–586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlin, L., & Kerstenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kray, J., & Lindenberger, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task switching. Psychology and Aging, 15, 126–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Burkell, J. (1986). Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation: A comparison of stop, change, and dual-task paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 549–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072–1090.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1124–1140.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 471–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2000). Reconfiguration of stimulus task-sets and response task-sets during task-switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance (Control of cognitive processes, Vol. XVIII, pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meuter, R. F., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming. Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, E. D. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple task performance: Part 1, Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., & Christian, C. (1996). Bottlenecks in planning and producing manual, vocal, and foot responses. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raffone, A., & Wolters, G. (2001). A cortical mechanism for binding in visual working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 766–785.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 124, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing taskswitching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1477–1491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica, 53, 61–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schweickert, R. (1978). A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a Stroop task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18, 105–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Duren, L. L., & Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the robusmess of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs. Acta Psychologica, 69, 83–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268–1283.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, A. T. (1952). The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high-speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. VIII, pp. 239–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). Orlando, FL: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, G., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”. Psychological Research, 63, 212–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zillig, M. (1926). Die Übung der Umstellbarkeit. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 100, 18ff.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bernhard Hommel & Stephen B. R. E. Brown

  2. Institute of Psychology, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Dieter Nattkemper

Authors
  1. Bernhard Hommel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen B. R. E. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dieter Nattkemper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hommel, B., Brown, S.B.R.E., Nattkemper, D. (2016). Controlling and Coordinating Multiple Actions. In: Human Action Control. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09244-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation