Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
When tasks are performed, other tasks are postponed, at least implicitly. Little is known about how task sequencing is determined. We examined task sequencing in object transfer tasks for which either task could easily or logically come before the other. The task was to transfer ping pong balls from two buckets into a bowl. To perform the task, participants walked down a corridor, picked up one of two buckets (their choice), carried it to the end of the corridor, transferred the balls from the bucket into a bowl, carried the bucket back to the start position, and then did the same with the other remaining bucket. As in an earlier study where just one of two buckets had to be carried to the end of a corridor (Rosenbaum et al. Psychol Sci 25(7):1487–1496, 2014), participants showed a marked tendency to start with the near bucket. The near-bucket preference was modulated only to a small extent by the number of balls that could be emptied into the bowl. The relative lack of importance of the number of balls to be transferred (to finish the first task more quickly or to get closer to the end goal of transferring all balls into the bowl) was further demonstrated by the fact that the effect of the number of balls to be transferred did not depend on how the emptying was supposed to occur (by pouring the balls or placing the balls one at a time into the bowl), or by whether the instruction focused on filling the bowl or emptying the buckets. The results suggest that the near-bucket preference reflects a strong inclination to start the task (sub-goal) as soon as possible rather than complete the task (sub-goal) as soon as possible. Starting the task as soon as possible may be related to the affordance triggered by the sight of the near object or by the freedom to perform without having to inhibit a reach for a bucket when the performer is empty-handed. Starting a task sooner may free up cognitive resources for subsequent decision-making.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Atwood, M. E., & Polson, P. G. (1976). A process model for water jug problems. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 191–216. CrossRef
Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(04), 723–742. PubMed
Botvinick, M. M., Buxbaum, L. J., Bylsma, L. M., & Jax, S. A. (2009). Toward an integrated account of object and action selection: A computational analysis and empirical findings from reaching-to-grasp and tool-use. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.024. CrossRefPubMed
Castiello, U. (1996). Grasping a fruit: Selection for action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(3), 582–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15184.108.40.2062. PubMed
Christenfeld, N. (1995). Choices from identical situations. Psychological Science, 6(1), 550–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00304.x. CrossRef
Droll, J. A., & Hayhoe, M. M. (2007). Trade-offs between gaze and working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1352–1365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15220.127.116.112. PubMed
Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011). The influence of agenda-based and habitual processes on item selection during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 899–912. PubMed
Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00382.x. CrossRef
Jax, S. A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2010). Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition, 115(2), 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.004. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Köhler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.
Lewin, K. (1926). Will and needs. Psychological Forces, 7, 294–385.
McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., Stout, A. C., & Morgan, Z. (2003). Aging and maintaining intentions over delays: Do it or lose it. Psychology and Aging, 18(4), 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7918.104.22.1683. CrossRefPubMed
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1980). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour. In CHIP Report 99. San Diego, CA: University of California.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour. In R. Davidson, G. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.
Ovsiankina, M. (1928). Die Wiederaufnahme unterbrochener Handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 11, 302–379. CrossRef
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 534–552.
Pinker, S., & Birdsong, D. (1979). Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 497–508. CrossRef
Rasmussen, J. (1987). Mental models and the control of action in complex environments. In D. Ackermann & M. J. Tanber (Eds.) Mental models and human–computer interaction (pp. 41–69), North-Holland: Elsevier.
Ruiz Fernández, S., Leonhard, T., Lachmair, M., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2013). Processing order in dual-tasks when the duration of motor responses varies [Special issue. Cognitive science]. Universitas Psychologica, 12(5), 1439–1452. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY12-5.podt. CrossRef
Ruiz Fernández, S., Leonhard, T., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Processing tow tasks with varying task order: Central stage duration influences central processing order. Acta Psychologica, 137(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.016. CrossRefPubMed
Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117–152). New York: Academic Press. CrossRef
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830–846. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1522.214.171.1240. PubMed
Zeigarnik, B. (1927). Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter Handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 9, 1–85. CrossRef
- Starting or finishing sooner? Sequencing preferences in object transfer tasks
Lisa R. Fournier
Alexandra M. Stubblefield
Brian P. Dyre
David A. Rosenbaum
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772