Automaticity versus timesharing in timing and tracking dual-task performance

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the interfering eects of a manual tracking task on timing performance. Subjects generated a series of 5-s temporal productions under control (timing only) and experimental (timing + pursuit rotor tracking) conditions. Timing was more variable under experimental conditions, a ®nding consistent with attentional models which argue that timing tasks compete with concurrent distractor tasks for limited processing resources. A pretest-posttest paradigm was employed to evaluate the hypothesis that practice on the tracking task would lessen its attentional demands and thereby attenuate the interference eect. Experiment 1 involved single-task practice (tracking alone). Single-task practice leads to automaticity, the ability to perform a skilled task using fewer processing resources. Pretest-posttest comparisons showed that such practice reduced interference in timing. Experiment 2 involved dual-task practice (timing + tracking). Dualtask practice promotes the development of timesharing, the ability to eciently switch attention between multiple tasks. In this case, practice failed to reduce the interference eect in timing. The results suggest that eective strategies for timing in dual-task situations must allow one to closely monitor the ongoing¯ow of temporal events.

Effects of extensive dual-task practice on processing stages in simultaneous choice tasks

“…In this context, no significant learning occurred in the orientation task at the beginning of practice. The practice-related improvement of the orientation feature detection task occurred only after participants had fully improved the letter identification task, which is suggestive of impaired component-task learning in the case of simultaneous tasks (see also Brown, 1998). Further evidence for impaired task learning under conditions of divided attention has come from studies on serial motor reaction task learning (Frensch, Wenke, & Rünger, 1999;Nissen & Bullemer, 1987;Schumacher & Schwarb, 2009).…”

To count or not to count: the effect of instructions on expecting a break in timing

“…Numerous studies, using a dual-task paradigm, have confirmed the imperative role of attention in timing under prospective conditions, when participants know before the beginning of the task that a temporal judgment will be required. When participants are performing temporal and nontemporal tasks simultaneously (e.g., perceptual, mental arithmetic, motor tracking), the perceived duration shortens with increasing difficulty or duration of nontemporal processing (Brown, 1985(Brown, , 1998(Brown, , 2006(Brown, , 2010Champagne & Fortin, 2008;Field & Groeger, 2004;Fortin, Champagne, & Poirier, 2007;Fortin & Rousseau, 1998;Macar, 2002;Macar, Grondin, & Casini, 1994;Rammsayer & Ulrich, 2005;Thomas & Weaver, 1975;Zakay, Nitzan, & Glicksohn, 1983). Temporal underestimation can be accounted for by an attention allocation model (for recent reviews, see Brown, 2008bBrown, , 2010.…”

Efeitos de estresse e treino na latência e acurácia de respostas motoras a estímulos visuais.

“…Presumably, both aspects of the task share the same attentional resources. Brown (1998Brown ( , 2008Brown, Bennett, 2002) demonstrated that for this type of task the so-called attenuation effect may occur. That is, practicing one aspect of the task (e.g., timing) reduces its attentional demands, thereby increasing the availability of resources for a second aspect of the task (e.g., spatial).…”

“…This freeing of attention can already be achieved by repetitive practice of the task or one its essential components (Brown, 1998(Brown, , 2008Brown, Bennett, 2002), and may be accelerated by limiting the amount of declarative task-relevant knowledge that is accumulated during practice (Jackson, Farrow, 2005;Masters, 1992). Brown (1998) showed that a spatial, non-temporal task (e.g., pursuit rotor tracking) may interfere with the execution of a temporal, non-spatial task (e.g., pressing a mouse button every 5 s) as shown by the production of less accurate and consistent time judgments. In fact, for tasks that require both timing and spatial precision, it is presumed that both aspects of the task share the same attentional pool of resources.…”

“…In fact, for tasks that require both timing and spatial precision, it is presumed that both aspects of the task share the same attentional pool of resources. Brown and Bennett (2002;Brown, 1998Brown, , 2008 found that practice of the spatial, non-temporal task attenuates the interference. That is, practicing one aspect of the task (e.g., timing) reduces its attentional demands on the first aspect of the task, thereby increasing the availability of resources for the second aspect of the task (e.g., spatial).…”