Parallel response-selection in dual-task situations

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Watter ◽  
Gordon D. Logan
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Response Selection

Electrophysiological correlates of parallel response selection in dual-task performance

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra J. Thomson ◽  
Matthew T. Mazurek ◽  
Judith M. Shedden ◽  
Scott Watter
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Dual Task ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Dual Task Performance

Channel Capacity and Locus of Interference under Dual Task Conditions

1978 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 659-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wade R. Helm ◽  
Robert P. Fishburne ◽  
Wayne L. Waag
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Secondary Task ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Processing System ◽  
Processing Capacity ◽  
Joint Function ◽  
Maximum Information ◽  
Attention Effect ◽  
Task Processing ◽  
Task Conditions

Two experiments were performed in order to determine subjects' maximum information-processing capacity under dual task conditions and to provide empirical evidence regarding the localization of the divided attention effect. The results suggest that performance on the primary task deteriorates as a joint function of both primary and secondary task processing loads. These data support the locus of interference being within the control-processing (memory-dependent) and response-selection stages of the processing system.

scholarly journals Semantic interference is not modality specific: Evidence from sound naming with distractor pictures

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Wöhner ◽  
Jörg D. Jescheniak ◽  
Andreas Mädebach
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Semantic Interference ◽  
Task Interference ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Selection Mechanisms ◽  
Dual Task Interference ◽  
Naming Tasks

In three experiments participants named environmental sounds (e.g., the bleating of a sheep by producing the word “sheep”) in the presence of distractor pictures. In Experiment 1 we observed faster responses in sound naming with congruent pictures (e.g., sheep; congruency facilitation) and slower responses with semantically related pictures (e.g., donkey; semantic interference), each compared to unrelated pictures (e.g., violin). In Experiments 2 and 3, we replicated these effects and used a psychological refractory period approach (combining an arrow decision or letter rotation task as task 1 with sound naming as task 2) to investigate the locus of the effects. Congruency facilitation was underadditive with dual -task interference suggesting that it arises, in part, during pre-central processing stages in sound naming (i.e., sound identification). In contrast, semantic interference was additive with dual -task interference suggesting that it arises during central (or post-central) processing stages in sound naming (i.e., response selection or later processes). These results demonstrate the feasibility of sound naming tasks for chronometric investigations of word production. Furthermore, they highlight that semantic interference is not restricted to the use of target pictures and distractor words but can be observed with quite different target-distractor configurations. The experiments support the view that congruency facilitation and semantic interference reflect some general cognitive mechanism involved in word production. These results are discussed in the context of the debate about semantic-lexical selection mechanisms in word production.

Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling.

1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 791-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric H. Schumacher ◽  
Erick J. Lauber ◽  
Jennifer M. Glass ◽  
Eileen L. Zurbriggen ◽  
Leon Gmeindl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Task Scheduling ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Dual Task ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Selection Processes ◽  
Dual Task Performance

Parallel Response Selection after Callosotomy

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 526-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliot Hazeltine ◽  
Andrea Weinstein ◽  
Richard B. Ivry
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Cognitive Architecture ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Period Effect ◽  
Split Brain ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period Effect ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Neurologically Intact

Two studies [Ivry, R. B., Franz, E. A., Kingstone, A., & Johnston, J. C. The psychological refractory period effect following callosotomy: Uncoupling of lateralized response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 463–480, 1998; Pashler, H., Luck, S., Hillyard, S. A., Mangun, G. R., O'Brien, S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. Sequential operation of disconnected hemispheres in split-brain patients. NeuroReport, 5, 2381–2384, 1994] reported robust dual-task costs in split-brain patients even when the two tasks were associated with separate cerebral hemispheres. Although the patients failed to demonstrate specific forms of interference observed in control participants, the timing of the two responses suggested that performance was constrained such that the responses could not be initiated independently. Alternatively, the split-brain participants may have adopted a strategy in which the second response was withheld until the first was initiated. The present study revisits this phenomenon using a procedure in which the stimuli for both tasks are presented simultaneously and neither is given priority over the other. Under these conditions, neurologically intact participants show robust dual-task costs that are mediated by compatibility effects between the responses of the two hands. In contrast, the split-brain participants show greatly reduced dual-task costs and compatibility effects. The minimal dual-task costs observed in the current study indicate that previous dual-task costs in split-brain patients may be strategic, reflecting experimental instructions to prioritize one task, rather than reflect fundamental constraints of the cognitive architecture.

Locus of Backward Crosstalk Effects on Task 1 in a Psychological Refractory Period Task

2014 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao-Ting Ko ◽  
Jeff Miller
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Refractory Period ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Standard Response ◽  
Backward Crosstalk ◽  
Selection Stage ◽  
Prp Paradigm ◽  
Response Selection Bottleneck

Our performance on a task decreases when the task is in a dual-task situation than when it is in isolation. An important experimental setting for dual-task situation is the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, and the dual-task performance decrements in the PRP paradigm are referred to as PRP interference. The standard response-selection bottleneck (RSB) models state that the response-selection stage of the second task (T2) cannot start until the response-selection stage of the first task (T1) finishes, resulting in the PRP interference. Contrary to the prediction of RSB models, several researchers have found T2’s modulations on T1’s performance, and have suggested that T1’s selection-related processes are affected by T2’s selection-related processes, referred to as backward crosstalk effects. The locus of backward crosstalk effects is not clear, however, because RTs were measured in most previous studies. By using semantically unrelated stimuli and responses and by measuring T1’s lateralized readiness potential, we examined the locus of backward crosstalk effects. We found that the interval between T1’s stimulus onset and the stimulus-locked LRP onset was affected, suggesting T2’s response selection starts before T1’s selection is complete. The present result provided electrophysiological evidence focusing on T1’s changes in favor of the hypothesis of parallel response selection in the PRP paradigm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document