Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2007 | Original Article

Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-stress instructions?

Auteurs: Yun Kyoung Shin, Yang Seok Cho, Mei-Ching Lien, Robert W. Proctor

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2007

Abstract

It has been argued that the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect is eliminated with two ideomotor compatible tasks when instructions stress fast and simultaneous responding. Three experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. In all experiments, Task 1 required spatially compatible manual responses (left or right) to the direction of an arrow, and Task 2 required saying the name of the auditory letter A or B. In Experiments 1 and 3, the manual responses were keypresses made with the left and right hands, whereas in Experiment 2 they were left–right toggle-switch movements made with the dominant hand. Instructions that stressed response speed reduced reaction time and increased error rate compared to standard instructions to respond fast and accurately, but did not eliminate the PRP effect on Task 2 reaction time. These results imply that, even when response speed is emphasized, ideomotor compatible tasks do not bypass response selection.

vorige artikel What is a nice smile like that doing in a place like this? Automatic affective responses to environments influence the recognition of facial expressions

volgende artikel Item-specific congruency effects in nonverbal auditory Stroop

In Lien et al.’s (2002) study, the interval varied as a function of the subject’s reaction time, the time for the experimenter to enter the identity of the vocal response into the computer, and whether error feedback of 1,000 ms was provided.

Using the notation illustrated in Fig. 1, the central bottleneck model makes a simple prediction for RT2 at short SOAs and long SOAs. Assuming that a bottleneck delay occurs on every trial at short SOAs but never at long SOAs,

$${\rm RT2}_{\text{(long SOA)}} = 2A + 2B +2C$$

$${\rm RT2}_{\text{(short SOA)}} = 1A + 1B + 2B + 2C - {\rm SOA} = {\rm RT1} - 1C + 2B + 2C - {\rm SOA}.$$

Therefore,

$${\rm PRP} = {\rm RT2}_{\text{(short SOA)}} - {\rm RT2}_{\text{(long SOA)}} = 1A + 1B - 2A - {\rm SOA}.$$

It follows that,

$${\rm PRP} =RT1 - 1C - 2A - {\rm SOA}.$$

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.CrossRefPubMed

Greenwald, A. G. (2005). A reminder about procedures needed to reliably produce perfect timesharing: Comment on Lien, McCann, Ruthruff, and Proctor (2005). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 221–225.CrossRefPubMed

Greenwald, A.G., & Shulman, H.G. (1973). On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 70–76.PubMedCrossRef

Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527–545.CrossRefPubMed

Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212–238.

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.CrossRefPubMed

Lien, M.-C., Proctor, R. W., & Ruthruff, E. (2003). Still no evidence for perfect timesharing with two ideomotor-compatible tasks: A reply to Greenwald (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 1267–1272.CrossRefPubMed

Lien, M.-C., McCann, R. E., 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, 122–144.CrossRefPubMed

Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (2006). Attentional limitations in doing two things at once: The search for exceptions. Current Directions in Psychological Science (in press).

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

Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193–251.CrossRefPubMed

Pashler, H. (1993). Dual-task interference and elementary mental mechanisms. In D. Meyer, & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 245–264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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

Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Pashler, H., & O’Brien, S. (1993). Dual-task interference and the cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 315–330.CrossRefPubMed

Posner, M. I., & Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391–408.CrossRef

Posner, M. I., Klein, R., Summers, J., & Buggie, S. (1973). On the selection of signals. Memory & Cognition, 1, 2–12.

Prinz, W. (1987). Ideo-motor action. In H. Heuer, & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 47–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333–367.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 280–289.CrossRefPubMed

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, 101–108.CrossRefPubMed

Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274–286.CrossRefPubMed

Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18.PubMedCrossRef

Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 795–810.CrossRefPubMed

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

Van Zandt, T., Colonius, H., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). A comparison of two response time models applied to perceptual matching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 208–256.

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.

Titel: Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-stress instructions?
Auteurs: Yun Kyoung Shin
Yang Seok Cho
Mei-Ching Lien
Robert W. Proctor
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2007
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2007
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0066-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2007

Utilization of covariation knowledge in source monitoring: no evidence for implicit processes

What is a nice smile like that doing in a place like this? Automatic affective responses to environments influence the recognition of facial expressions

Sequence effects in a spatial cueing task: Endogenous orienting is sensitive to orienting in the preceding trial

The configuration and relaxation of motor task sets

Rapid onset and long-term inhibition of return in the multiple cuing paradigm

Exploring the mental number line: evidence from a dual-task paradigm