Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.

» Andere revante producten voor Scalda studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Schaf de BSL Academy aan: 

BSL Academy mbo AG

Eenmaal aangeschaft kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met Jan van der Velden.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2006 | Original Article

Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies

Auteur: Jeff Miller

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2006

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Three experiments using psychological refractory period (PRP) tasks documented backward crosstalk effects in which the nature of the second-task response influenced the first-task response latencies. Such effects are difficult to explain within currently popular bottleneck models, according to which second-task response selection does not begin until first-task response selection has finished. In Experiments 1 and 2, the first of the PRP tasks required a choice reaction time (RT) response, whereas the second task required a go/no-go decision. Task 1 responses were faster when the second task required a go response than when it required a no-go response. Experiment 3 showed that Task 1 RTs were also influenced by the complexity of second-task responses. These backward crosstalk effects indicate that significant second-task processing is carried out in time to influence first-task responses and thus challenge strictly serial bottleneck models.
vorige artikel Emergent perceptual features in the benefit of consistent stimulus-response mappings on dual-task performance
volgende artikel What causes residual dual-task interference after practice?
Voetnoten
1
Moreover, Logan and Schulkind (2000, Experiments 3 and 4) found no evidence of backward crosstalk in PRP paradigms using two manual responses, so it is clear that the use of two manual responses is not sufficient by itself to cause such crosstalk.
 
2
Chamberlin (1987) found no effect of second-task response complexity on RT1 with a simple RT task as the first task, but simple RT responses seem unlikely to be influenced by crosstalk in the first place because they can be completely preplanned.
 
Literatuur
Adam, J. J., & Van Veggel, L. M. (1991). Discrete finger response latencies in a simple reaction time task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 863–866.PubMedCrossRef
Bertelson, P., & Tisseyre, F. (1969). Refractory period of C-reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 122–128.CrossRef
Brunia, C. H. (1983). Motor preparation: Changes in amplitude of Achilles tendon reflexes during a fixed foreperiod of one second. Psychophysiology, 20, 658–664.PubMed
Chamberlin, C. J. (1987). Effect of complexity of the second response on reaction time to the first response in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 1075–1080.
De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965–980.CrossRefPubMed
Donders, F. C. (1868/1969). Over de snelheid van psychische processen. [On the speed of mental processes.] (W. G. Koster, Trans.). In W. G. Koster (Ed.), Attention and performance II (pp. 412–431). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Duncan, J. (1977). Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 49–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gemba, H., Sasaki, K., & Tsujimoto, T. (1990). No-go potential in monkeys and human subjects. In C. H. M. Brunia, A. W. K. Gaillard, & A. Kok (Eds.), Psychophysiological brain research, vol. 1 (pp. 133–136). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Gottsdanker, R. (1969). Interacting responses to crowded signals. Acta Psychologica, 30, 168–176.CrossRef
Hackley, S. A., & Miller, J. O. (1995). Response complexity and precue interval effects on the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology, 32, 230–241.PubMed
Hackley, S. A., & Valle-Inclán, F. (1999). Accessory stimulus effects on response selection: Does arousal speed decision making? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 321–329.CrossRefPubMed
Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527–545.CrossRefPubMed
Heil, M., Osman, A. M., Wiegelmann, J., Rolke, B., & Hennighausen, E. (2000). N200 in the Eriksen-task: Inhibitory executive process? Journal of Psychophysiology, 14, 218–225.CrossRef
Henry, F. M., & Rogers, D. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a “memory drum” theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly, 31, 448–458.
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368–1384.CrossRefPubMed
Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (2002). Control of stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66, 260–273.CrossRefPubMed
Kerr, B. (1983). Preplanning for aimed movements: Disruption from a preliminary task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 596–606.CrossRef
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. M. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMed
Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1260–1280.CrossRefPubMed
Logan, G. D., & Delheimer, J. A. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 668–685.PubMedCrossRef
Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072–1090.CrossRefPubMed
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749–791.CrossRef
Miller, J. O., & Alderton, M. (2002). Backward motor crosstalk in a psychological refractory period task. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Kansas City, November.
Miller, J. O., & Reynolds, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 1126–1142.CrossRefPubMed
Muroi, M., Naito, E., & Matsumura, M. (1997). Evidence for psychological refractory effect in motor inhibition for a dual-response go/no-go task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 563–568.PubMedCrossRef
Navon, D. (1984). Resources—a theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.CrossRef
Navon, D., & Miller, J. O. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193–251.CrossRefPubMed
Pashler, H. E. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358–377.CrossRefPubMed
Pashler, H. E., Johnston, J. C., & Ruthruff, E. D. (2000). Attention and performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 629–651.CrossRef
Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157–171.CrossRefPubMed
Ruthruff, E. D., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3–21.CrossRefPubMed
Ruthruff, E. D., 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 and Performance, 29, 280–289.CrossRefPubMed
Ruthruff, E. D., Miller, J. O., & Lachmann, T. (1995). Does mental rotation require central mechanisms? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 552–570.CrossRefPubMed
Ruthruff, E. D., Pashler, H. E., & Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 73–80.
Sasaki, K., Gemba, H., Nambu, A., & Matsuzaki, R. (1993). No-go activity in the frontal association cortex of human subjects. Neuroscience Research, 18, 249–252.CrossRefPubMed
Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101–108.CrossRefPubMed
Sternberg, S. (1969a). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.CrossRef
Sternberg, S. (1969b). Memory scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. American Scientist, 57, 421–457.
Stief, V., Leuthold, H., Miller, J. O., Sommer, W., & Ulrich, R. (1998). The effect of response complexity on the lateralized readiness potential. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 206, 305–319.
Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18.CrossRefPubMed
Van Duren, L. L., & Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs. Acta Psychologica, 69, 83–94.CrossRefPubMed
Van Selst, M., & Jolicœur, P. (1994). Can mental rotation occur before the dual-task bottleneck? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 905–921.CrossRefPubMed
Vincent, S. B. (1912). The function of the viborissae in the behavior of the white rat. Behavioral Monographs, 1 (5), 1–82
Metagegevens
Titel
Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies
Auteur
Jeff Miller
Publicatiedatum
01-11-2006
Uitgeverij
Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2006
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0011-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2006

Task-set inertia and memory-consolidation bottleneck in dual tasks

  • Original Article

Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: an event-related fMRI study

  • Original Article

Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck

  • Original Article

Process-based and code-based interference in dual-task performance

  • Editorial

How the brain blinks: towards a neurocognitive model of the attentional blink

  • Original Article

What causes residual dual-task interference after practice?

  • Original Article