A comparison of the psychological refractory period and prioritized processing paradigms: Can the response-selection bottleneck model explain them both?

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 1420-1441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Miller ◽  
Moritz Durst
Keyword(s):  
Refractory Period ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Bottleneck Model ◽  
Response Selection Bottleneck

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.

Valence Processing Bypassing the Response Selection Bottleneck?

2008 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rico Fischer ◽  
Torsten Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Refractory Period ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Flanker Task ◽  
Capacity Limitations ◽  
Semantic Categories ◽  
Response Selection Bottleneck ◽  
Response Activation ◽  
Temporal Overlap

Abstract. The activation of semantic categories has often been claimed to occur in an attention-free, unconditionally automatic fashion (e.g., Bargh & Chartrand, 1999 ; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004 ). Using a dual-task procedure we tested whether the activation of valence categories is restricted by dual-task specific attentional limitations. For this reason we implemented a modified Eriksen-flanker task as Task 2 in a psychological refractory period paradigm. Participants were to judge the frequency of a tone in Task 1 and the valence of a target word in the presence of irrelevant flanker words in Task 2. Two different flanker categories ensured the activation of semantic categories instead of S-R based response activation. The most important result was an underadditive interaction between flanker congruency and the amount of temporal overlap between tasks that was independent of flanker type. Following the locus-of-slack logic, we interpret these findings as evidence for Task 2 processing parallel to bottleneck-stage processing in Task 1. This extends previous findings by showing that not only number categories ( Fischer, Schubert, & Miller, 2007 ; Oriet, Tombu, & Jolicouer, 2005 ), but also semantic valence categories can be activated despite dual-task capacity limitations.

The Psychological Refractory Period as a Function of Performance of a First Response

1967 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 350-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn C. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Refractory Period ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Expectancy Theory ◽  
Response Component ◽  
First Response ◽  
Motor Component ◽  
Channel Theory

Proponents of a “single channel” theory of the psychological refractory period have not specified whether the single channel occupies only the decision component of the response selection, only the motor or response component, or both. In this experiment, the delay in the RT to the second of two successively presented stimuli was examined as a function of whether or not an overt motor response was made to the first stimulus, keeping the decision component constant. It was found that in both conditions RT2 was delayed, suggesting that the decision component was a part of the single channel. However, RT2 was delayed by a significantly greater amount if a motor response was required, indicating that the motor component is part of the single channel as well. Implications of the results for an expectancy theory of the psychological refractory period are discussed.

scholarly journals Dual task interference on early perceptual processing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Duncan ◽  
Amélie Roberge ◽  
Ulysse Fortier-Gauthier ◽  
Daniel Fiset ◽  
Caroline Blais ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Refractory Period ◽  
Visual Memory ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Sensory Modality ◽  
Perceptual Processing ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Temporal Proximity ◽  
Response Modality ◽  
Visual Spatial

AbstractWhen two tasks, Task 1 and Task 2, are conducted in close temporal proximity and a separate speeded response is required for each target (T1 and T2), T2 report performance decreases as a function of its temporal proximity to T1. This so-called psychological refractory period (PRP) effect on T2 processing is largely assumed to reflect interference from T1 response selection on T2 response selection. However, interference on early perceptual processing of T2 has been observed in a modified paradigm, which required changes in visual-spatial attention, sensory modality, task modality, and response modality across targets. The goal of the present study was to investigate the possibility of early perceptual interference by systematically and iteratively removing each of these possible non perceptual confounds, in a series of four experiments. To assess T2 visual memory consolidation success, T2 was presented for a varying duration and immediately masked. T2 report accuracy, which was taken as a measure of perceptual—encoding or consolidation—success, decreased across all experimental control conditions as T1–T2 onset proximity increased. We argue that our results, in light of previous studies, show that central processing of a first target, responsible for the classical PRP effect, also interferes with early perceptual processing of a second target. We end with a discussion of broader implications for psychological refractory period and attentional blink effects.

scholarly journals Individual differences effects on the psychological refractory period

SpringerPlus ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maude Laguë-Beauvais ◽  
Christine Gagnon ◽  
Nathalie Castonguay ◽  
Louis Bherer
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Refractory Period ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document