Abstract
In this research, the controversial issue of whether the central bottleneck can be bypassed through task automatization was investigated. To examine this issue, participants received six single-task practice sessions with an auditory-vocal task (low vs. high pitch). We then assessed dual-task performance using the analytically tractable psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, in which the highly practiced auditory-vocal task was presented as Task 2, along with an unpracticed visual-manual Task 1. The results provide evidence of bottleneck bypass for virtually all the participants (17 out of 20). Several converging tests suggest that the bottleneck reemerged, however, in a follow-up experiment with tasks presented in the opposite order (auditory-vocal Task 1 and visual-manual Task 2). One possible explanation is that tasks greedily recruit central resources when available, even though they can operate without central resources when unavailable.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R., Taatgen, N. A., & Byrne, M. D. (2005). Learning to achieve perfect timesharing: Architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, and Ivry (2002). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 749–761.
Bertelson, P., & Tisseyre, F. (1969). Refractory period of c-reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 122–128.
Borger, R. (1963). The refractory period and serial choice reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 1–12.
De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 965–989.
Göthe, K., Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2007). Age differences in dual-task performance after practice. Psychology & Aging, 22, 596–606.
Hartley, A. A., & Maquestiaux, F. (2007). Success and failure at dual-task coordination by younger and older adults. Psychology & Aging, 22, 215–222.
Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70, 504–513.
Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345.
Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 527–545.
Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167–178.
Keele, S. (1973). Attention and human performance. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 862–869.
Levy, J., Pashler, H., & Boer, E. (2006). Central interference in driving: Is there any stopping the psychological refractory period? Psychological Science, 17, 228–235.
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 & Performance, 31, 122–144.
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., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (2006). Attentional limi-tations in doing two things at once: The search for exceptions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 89–93.
Maquestiaux, F., Hartley, A. A., & Bertsch, J. (2004). Can practice overcome age-related differences in the psychological refractory period effect? Psychology & Aging, 19, 649–667.
McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 471–484.
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3–65.
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.
Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2004). Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 689–707.
Pashler, H. [E.] (1994a). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.
Pashler, H. [E.] (1994b). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 330–342.
Pashler, H. E. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pashler, H. [E.], & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19–45.
Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research, 70, 494–503.
Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 3–21.
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 & Performance, 29, 280–289.
Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Hazeltine, E. (2003). Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement? Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 801–816.
Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 73–80.
Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. W. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening? Psychological Research, 70, 125–142.
Schumacher, E. H., Lauber, E. J., Glass, J. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Gmeindl, L., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1999). Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 791–814.
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.
Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, E. H., & D’Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: An fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 514–525.
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.
Telford, C. W. (1931). Refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1–35.
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 795–810.
Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1268–1283.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from La Fondation des Gouverneurs of the Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal to F.M. This research was also supported by a Canadian grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada and by salary support from the Fonds de Recherche en Santé du Québec to L.B.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maquestiaux, F., Laguë-Beauvais, M., Bherer, L. et al. Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory & Cognition 36, 1262–1282 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1262
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1262