Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The prevalence and the efficiency of serial and parallel processing under multiple task demands are highly debated. In the present study, we investigated whether individual preferences for serial or overlapping (parallel) processing represent a permanent predisposition or depend on the risk of crosstalk between tasks. Two groups (n = 91) of participants were tested. One group performed a classical task switching paradigm, enforcing a strict serial processing of tasks. The second group of participants performed the same tasks in a task-switching-with-preview paradigm, recently introduced by Reissland and Manzey (2016), which in principle allows for overlapping processing of both tasks in order to compensate for switch costs. In one condition, the tasks included univalent task stimuli, whereas in the other bivalent stimuli were used, increasing risk of crosstalk and task confusion in case of overlapping processing. The general distinction of voluntarily occurring preferences for serial or overlapping processing when performing task switching with preview could be confirmed. Tracking possible processing mode adjustments between low- and high-crosstalk conditions showed that individuals identified as serial processors in the low-crosstalk condition persisted in their processing mode. In contrast, overlapping processors split up in a majority adjusting to a serial processing mode and a minority persisting in overlapping processing, when working with bivalent stimuli. Thus, the voluntarily occurring preferences for serial or overlapping processing seem to depend at least partially on the risk of crosstalk between tasks. Strikingly, in both crosstalk conditions the individual performance efficiency was the higher, the more they processed in parallel.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23. CrossRef
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2003). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 145–199. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368–1384. PubMed
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14, 89.
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. Variation in Working Memory, 1, 21–48.
Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 451–468. PubMed
Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 143–148. CrossRef
Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of visual selective attention: efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychological Science, 8(5), 395–396. CrossRef
Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94(2), 145–188. CrossRef
Meiran, N. (2010). Task switching: mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In R. R. Hassin, K. N. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self control in society, mind and brain (pp. 202–220). New York: Oxford University. CrossRef
Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 273–310. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.08.003. CrossRefPubMed
Mueller ST (2012) The Psychology Experiment Building Language, Version 0.13. Retrieved from http://pebl.sourceforge.net.
Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435–448. PubMed
Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2012). Better not to deal with two tasks at the same time when stressed? Acute psychosocial stress reduces task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(3), 557–570. CrossRef
Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 164–171. CrossRef
Salvucci, D. D. (2013). Multitasking. In J. D. Lee & A. Kirlik (Eds.), The oxford handbook of cognitive engineering (pp. 57–65). New York: Oxford University.
Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 376–397. PubMed
Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101–108. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00318. CrossRefPubMed
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dualtask performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18. PubMed
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154. CrossRef
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101). New York: Academic Press.
- Flexibility of individual multitasking strategies in task-switching with preview: are preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing dependent on between-task conflict?
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg