Skip to main content
Log in

Telephone conversation impairs sustained visual attention via a central bottleneck

  • Brief Reports
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent research has shown that holding telephone conversations disrupts one’s driving ability. We asked whether this effect could be attributed to a visual attention impairment. In Experiment 1, participants conversed on a telephone or listened to a narrative while engaged in multiple object tracking (MOT), a task requiring sustained visual attention. We found that MOT was disrupted in the telephone conversation condition, relative to single-task MOT performance, but that listening to a narrative had no effect. In Experiment 2, we asked which component of conversation might be interfering with MOT performance. We replicated the conversation and single-task conditions of Experiment 1 and added two conditions in which participants heard a sequence of words over a telephone. In the shadowing condition, participants simply repeated each word in the sequence. In the generation condition, participants were asked to generate a new word based on each word in the sequence. Word generation interfered with MOT performance, but shadowing did not. The data indicate that telephone conversation disrupts attention at a central stage, the act of generating verbal stimuli, rather than at a peripheral stage, such as listening or speaking.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, R., McGeorge, P., Pearson, D. G., & Milne, A. (2006). Multiple-target tracking: A role for working memory? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1101–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, G. A., Horowitz, T. S., Arsenio, H. C., DiMase, J. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2005). Do multielement visual tracking and visual search draw continuously on the same visual attention resources? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 643–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnell, K. M. (2001). Cross-modal interactions in dual-task paradigms. In K. Shapiro (Ed.), The limits of attention: Temporal constraints in human information processing (pp. 141–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Briem, V., & Hedman, L. R. (1995). Behavioural effects of mobile telephone use during simulated driving. Ergonomics, 38, 2536–2562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, P., & Alvarez, G. A. (2005). Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 349–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Acqua, R., & Jolicoeur, P. (2000). Visual encoding of patterns is subject to dual-task interference. Memory & Cognition, 28, 184–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 11, 357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fougnie, D., & Marois, R. (2006). Distinct capacity limits for attention and working memory: Evidence from attentive tracking and visual working memory paradigms. Psychological Science, 17, 526–534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowecky, M., Iordanescu, L., & Suzuki, S. (2007). Attentive tracking involves a demand-based dynamic redistribution of attention [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 7(9), 580a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helleberg, J. R., & Wickens, C. D. (2003). Effects of data-link modality and display redundancy on pilot performance: An attentional perspective. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13, 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herdman, C. M., & Friedman, A. (1985). Multiple resources in divided attention: A cross-modal test of the independence of hemispheric resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, T. S., Klieger, S. B., Fencsik, D. E., Yang, K. K., Alvarez, G. A., & Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Tracking unique objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 172–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Dual-task interference and visual encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 596–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J., Pashler, H., & Boer, E. (2006). Central interference in driving: Is there any stopping the psychological refractory period? Psychological Science, 17, 228–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarley, J. S., Vais, M. J., Pringle, H., Kramer, A. F., Irwin, D. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2004). Conversation disrupts change detection in complex traffic scenes. Human Factors, 46, 424–436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dualtask performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 157–167). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirevaag, E. J., Kramer, A. F., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1989). Resource reciprocity: An event-related brain potentials analysis. Acta Psychologica, 70, 77–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., & Read, L. (2003). Speech shadowing while driving: On the difficulty of splitting attention between eye and ear. Psychological Science, 14, 251–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2007). Cell-phone-induced driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 128–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48, 381–391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phoneinduced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 23–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dualtask studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological Science, 12, 462–466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, L. M., McDonald, J. J., & Golestani, N. (1998). Cross-modal control of attention shifts. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Visual attention (pp. 232–268). New York: Oxford University Press.

    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 Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 25, 227–248.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M., Place, S. S., & Horowitz, T. S. (2007). Multiple object juggling: Changing what is tracked during extended multiple object tracking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 344–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melina A. Kunar.

Additional information

This research was supported by NIH Grant MH 65576 to T.S.H. R.C. was supported by Project Success, a program sponsored by the Harvard Medical School Office for Diversity and Community Partnership through the support of the Gustavus and Louise Pfeiffer Research Foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kunar, M.A., Carter, R., Cohen, M. et al. Telephone conversation impairs sustained visual attention via a central bottleneck. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 1135–1140 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1135

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1135

Keywords

Navigation