Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
In the present experiment, we examined slowing of the individual key presses of a familiar keying sequence by four different versions of a concurrent tone counting task. This was done to determine whether the same cognitive processor that has previously been assumed by the dual processor model (DPM) to initiate familiar keying sequences and assist in their execution, is involved also in the central processes of a very different task (viz. identifying tones and counting target tones). The present results confirm this hypothesis. They also suggest that in this particular situation the central processing resources underlying the cognitive processor can be distributed across the central processes of different tasks in a graded manner, rather than that they continue to behave like a single, central processor that serially switches between the central processes of the concurrently performed tasks. We argue that the production of highly practiced movement sequences can be considered automatic in the sense that execution of familiar movement sequences can continue without cognitive control once they have been initiated.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Abrahamse, E. L., Ruitenberg, M. F. L., De Kleine, E., & Verwey, W. B. (2013). Control of automated behaviour: Insights from the discrete sequence production task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, (in revision).
Ashby, F. G., & Crossley, M. J. (2012). Automaticity and multiple memory systems. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 363–376.
Botvinick, M., & Bylsma, L. (2005). Distraction and action slips in an everyday task: Evidence for a dynamic representation of task context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 1011–1017. CrossRef
Detweiler, M., & Schneider, W. (1991). Modeling the acquisition of dual-task skill in a connectionnist/control architecture. In D. L. Damos (Ed.), Multiple-task performance (pp. 69–99). London: Taylor & Francis.
Garcia-Colera, A., & Semjen, A. (1988). Distributed planning of movement sequences. Journal of Motor Behavior, 20(3), 341–367.
Glencross, D. J. (1980). Response planning and the organization of speed movements. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and Performance VIII (pp. 107–125). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Gottsdanker, R., Perkins, T., & Aftab, J. (1986). Studying reaction time with nonaging intervals: An effective procedure. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 18(3), 287–292. CrossRef
Greenwald, A. G. (2003). On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 859–868. PubMed
Hikosaka, O., Nakahara, H., Rand, M. K., Sakai, K., Lu, X., Nakamura, K., et al. (1999). Parallel neural networks for learning sequential procedures. Trends in Neuroscience, 22(10), 464–471. CrossRef
Hirst, W., & Kalmar, D. (1987). Characterizing attentional resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 68–81. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384. PubMed
Jolicœur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1999). Attentional and structural constraints on visual encoding. Psychological Research, 62(2–3), 154–164.
Kahneman, D. (1973). In attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lien, M. C., McCann, R. S., Ruthruff, E., & Proctor, R. W. (2005). Dual-task performance with ideomotor-compatible tasks: is the central processing bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 122–144. PubMed
Lien, M. C., Proctor, R. W., & Allen, P. A. (2002). Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 396–409. PubMed
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527. CrossRef
Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times. Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McLeod, P. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29(4), 651–667. CrossRef
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(4), 749–791. CrossRef
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt. CrossRef
Miller, J., & Hackley, S. A. (1992). Electrophysiological evidence for temporal overlap among contingent mental processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 195–209. CrossRef
Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2007). What is automaticity? An analysis of its component features and their interrelations. Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes. In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes, Frontiers of social psychology (pp. 11–50). New York: Psychology Press.
Moray, N. (1967). Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. Acta Psychologica, 27, 84–92.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum. CrossRef
Olive, T., Alves, R. A., & Castro, S. L. (2009). Cognitive processes in writing during pause and execution periods. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 758–785. CrossRef
Paillard, J. (1960). Neurophysiology. In H. W. Magoun (Ed.), Handbook of physiology. A critical comprehensive presentation of physiological knowledge and concepts (Section 1, Neurophysiology, Vol. III, Chapter 67, The pattern of skilled movements) (pp. 1679–1708). Washington: American Physiological Society.
Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1969). Attention demands of movement. In Proceedings of XVIth congress of applied psychology. (pp. 418–422). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Reason, J. (1992). Cognitive underspecification: Its varieties and consequences. In B. J. Baars (Ed.), Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition. Cognition and language (pp. 71–91). New York: Plenum Press. CrossRef
Ruthruff, E., & Pashler, H. (2001). Perceptual and central interference in dual-task performance. In K. Shapiro (Ed.), Temporal constraints on human information processing (pp. 100–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Sanders, A. F. (1990). Issues and trends in the debate on discrete vs. continuous processing of information. Acta Psychologica, 74(2–3), 123–167. CrossRef
Shaffer, L. H. (1991). Cognition and motor programming. In J. Requin & G. E. Stelmach (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 371–383). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRef
Stanovich, K. E., & Pachella, R. G. (1977). Encoding, stimulus–response compatibility and stages of processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(3), 411–421.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315. CrossRef
Sternberg, S. (1998). Discovering mental processing stages: The method of additive stages. In D. Scarborough & S. Sternberg (Eds.), Methods, models, and conceptual issues. An invitation to cognitive science (Vol. 4, pp. 703–863). Cambridge: MIT.
Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associate responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 1–36.
Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2005). Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 790–802. PubMed
Tzelgov, J. (1997). Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: A theoretical note. Consciousness and Cognition, 6(2–3), 441–451. CrossRef
Verwey, W. B. (1996). Buffer loading and chunking in sequential keypressing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(3), 544–562.
Verwey, W. B. (2003b). Processing modes and parallel processors in producing familiar keying sequences. Psychological Research, 67(2), 106–122. PubMed
Verwey, W. B., Abrahamse, E. L., & De Kleine, E. (2010). Cognitive processing in new and practiced discrete keying sequences. Frontiers in Cognition, 1, 32.
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(1), 2–19.
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of Attention (pp. 63–102). London: Academic Press.
- Evidence for graded central processing resources in a sequential movement task
Willem B. Verwey
Elger L. Abrahamse
Elian De Kleine
Marit F. L. Ruitenberg
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg