Capacity limitations in human information processing

Shwartz, Steven P.

doi:10.3758/bf03213246

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some investigators have used different versions of the probe task to assess specific resource demands, and different patterns of interference have emerged, depending on the nature of the probe and the nature of the response to the probe. In visual matching tasks, for example, visual probes produce more interference than do auditory probes, suggesting that the matching task requires specific visual resources (Millar, 1975.;Proctor & Proctor, 1979;Shwartz, 1976). McLeod (1978) found that probes that required a vocal response produced a pattern of interference different from that produced by probes that required a manual response, suggesting that the matching task requires specific motor resources.…”

Section: Mental Resources and The Probe Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs and benefits of strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task

1983

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The costs and benefits of constructing and utilizing a strategy for performing a speeded discrimination task were assessed in terms of time and mental resources. The strategy involved using information about the position a word occupied in order to respond to its identity more rapidly. The resources used to construct and utilize the strategy were assessed from responses to probes presented at various times during the task. In Experiment I, the probe required a manual response, whereas in Experiment 2, the probe required a vocal response. Strategy construction interfered with the probe task in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2, suggesting that strategy construction required resources specific to the manual response system. There was also some evidence that strategy construction required general resources, but the evidence for specific resources was much stronger. The findings are consistent with our previous ideas about how the strategy is represented (Logan, 1980a;Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979). The different results with different responses to the probes point out important limitations on previous studies of probe interference and of cost-benefit analysis, which each focused on a single dimension of cost and benefit. The differences suggest that a multiple-resources approach to probe interference and cost-benefit analysis might be more appropriate.In general terms, a strategy may be defined as an optional organization of cognitive processes that is intended to achieve some goal in some task environment. The strategy chosen for a particular task is probably a compromise between the constraints imposed by the structure of the information in the task environment, by the structure of the subject's cognitive abilities, and by the structure of the goals to be achieved by performing the task. Probably, several strategies can satisfy the constraints for any given task, but only one can be used each trial. How is the one chosen? The different possibilities can be ranked in terms of the benefits the subject can expect to gain from them and the costs associated with attaining the benefits. Then, the strategy that maximizes benefit and minimizes cost is the best choice.

show abstract

Section: Mental Resources and The Probe Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs and benefits of strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task

1983

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shwartz (1976) argued that interference effects were clearly evident when the probe and primary task were in the same modality, but not when they were in different modalities. Since that time a more recent study (Proctor & Proctor, 1979) has shown limitations in the methodology used by Shwartz and has concluded that interference provided by probes occurs to nearly the same degree, irrespective of the modality of the probe event.…”

Section: Subjective Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Cumulative development of attentional theory.

Posner¹

1982

American Psychologist

310

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes current work in selective attention within a framework derived from important findings extending back over a century. The contributions of Danders, Helmholtz, Pavlov, Sokolov, and Wundt, for example, are deeply embedded in current methods for studying selectivity. The cumulative nature of work on attention is not widely appreciated, in part because of a failure to recognize that the methods used in current studies arose in empirical findings of the past and also because attention is a concept that can be studied at many levels. There is evidence that findings at the level of performance, subjective experience, and neural systems can be linked, even though they are not yet reducible to a single theory. Studies to date reveal some properties of a complex neural mechanism involved in our awareness of a stimulus. The time course of operation of this mechanism can be studied objectively and shown to be related both to changes in performance and to subjective experience. This attentional mechanism is involved in the skilled performance of daily life, but many other systems are also important in determining the degree to which natural tasks can be time shared.

show abstract

“…Instead, control is heterarchic; different capacities assume executive control in different tasks (Allport, Antonis, & Reynolds, 1972;Treisman, 1969;Turvey, 1977). The first view can be ruled out on the basis of existing data: There appear to be many independent influences on performance, and each may be viewed as a capacity limitation (e.g., the processing stages described by Sternberg, 1969; also see Allport, 1971;Shwartz, 1976;Treisman & Davies, 1973). The choice between the second and third views (i.e., the choice between a single executive and heterarchic control) is important in interpreting data obtained with the concurrent-memory-load technique since heterarchic control violates the assumption that all tasks share one capacity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the use of a concurrent memory load to measure attention and automaticity.

Logan¹

1979

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

281

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concurrent-memory-load technique identifies attention demands with interactions between reaction-time-task parameters and the size of the load on memory. Three experiments are reported in which a multiple-choice, reaction time task involving two, four, and eig-ht stimulus-response (S-R) alternatives was performed alone and in the retention interval of a short-termmemory task involving ordered recall of eight digits. In Experiment 1, assignment of stimulus letters to response buttons (S-R mapping) was consistent for 6 days but varied on the seventh. Memory load and number of alternatives interacted early in practice, but the interaction diminished over days, and the effects were additive on Day 6. When the S-R mapping changed on Day 7, the interaction returned. In Experiment 2, S-R mapping varied daily for 6 days, and the interaction remained stable throughout practice. In Experiment 3, S-R mapping was consistent for 6 days and varied on the seventh, but the memory task was not introduced until Days 6 and 7. The interaction between memory load and number of alternatives was stronger on Day 7, after the mapping had changed, than it was on Day 6, after practice with consistent mapping. The discussion focuses on the validity of the concurrent-memory-load technique and its relation to another method for measuring attention and automaticity, and on the importance of practice with consistent mapping and practice with dual-task conditions in the development of automaticity.In general terms, attention refers to a cen-performance in some task environment. Pertral process that coordinates and controls formance is considered automatic to the extent that it is coordinated without attentional This research was supported by Grant AO 682and the development of automaticity from the National Research Council of Canada. I with practice refers to a transfer of control would like to thank Lee Smith for running the sub-from attention to reliable characteristics of jects. I am grateful to Ron Fisher, Paul Kolers, the task environment. The concurrent-memMorris Moscovitch, Ben Murdock Sandor Wise-or load technique has been offered as a man, and Jane Zbrodoff for their thoughtful comi • /• • ± *.-j^. ments and criticism throughout the development of method for measuring attention and automathis manuscript, and to Tom Carr, Michael Posner, ticity, and the experiments reported here and Anne Treisman for thorough reviews of an were designed to evaluate it. earlier version.The technique assumes that the capacity Requests for reprints should be sent to Gordon r .. 1 * • <• •,. i ,1 , • D. Logan, Department of Psychology, Erindale for attentional control is limited, that in pnnCollege, University of Toronto, Mississauga, On-ciple attentional capacity can be shared by all tario, Canada LSL 1C6.tasks and task components, and that atten-

show abstract

Capacity limitations in human information processing

Cited by 26 publications

References 9 publications

Costs and benefits of strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task

Costs and benefits of strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task

Cumulative development of attentional theory.

On the use of a concurrent memory load to measure attention and automaticity.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About