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

Schumacher, Eric H.; Lauber, Erick J.; Glass, Jennifer M.; Zurbriggen, Eileen L.; Gmeindl, Leon; Kieras, David E.; Meyer, David E.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.3.791

Cited by 109 publications

(223 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

209

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the effect of practice on the magnitude of the dual-task interference is also different across studies (e.g., Karlin & Kestenbaum, 1968;Ruthruff, Johnston, Van Selst, Whitsell, & Remington, 2003;Schumacher et al, 2001;Van Selst & Jolicoeur, 1997;Van Selst, Ruthruff, & Johnston, 1999). These and other findings challenge the assumption of a structural response-selection bottleneck in dualtask performance (e.g., Hübner & Lehle, 2007;Israel & Cohen, 2011;Karlin & Kestenbaum, 1968;Lehle & Hübner, 2009;Leonhard & Ulrich, 2011;Meyer & Kieras, 1997;Miller et al, 2009;Navon & Miller, 2002;Pannebakker et al, 2011;Schumacher et al, 1999Schumacher et al, , 2001Schvaneveldt, 1969;Szameitat, Schubert, Müller, & Von Cramon, 2002;Szameitat, Lepsien, von Cramon, Sterr, & Schubert, 2006;Tombu & Jolicoeur, 2003). Although under the strategic bottleneck account (Meyer & Kieras, 1997;Piai et al, 2011;Roelofs, 2007Roelofs, , 2008a, a responseselection bottleneck is optional rather than obligatory (i.e., response selection in Tasks 1 and 2 may, in principle, occur in parallel), the present findings suggest that participants seem to have a very strong preference for not overlapping responseselection processes in dual-task performance.…”

Section: The Nature Of the Processing Bottleneckmentioning

confidence: 97%

Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance.

Piai¹,

Roelofs²,

Schriefers³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disagreement exists regarding the functional locus of semantic interference of distractor words in picture naming. This effect is a cornerstone of modern psycholinguistic models of word production, which assume that it arises in lexical response-selection. However, recent evidence from studies of dual-task performance suggests a locus in perceptual or conceptual processing, prior to lexical response-selection. In these studies, participants manually responded to a tone and named a picture while ignoring a written distractor word. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between tone and picture-word stimulus was manipulated. Semantic interference in naming latencies was present at long tone pre-exposure SOAs, but reduced or absent at short SOAs. Under the prevailing structural or strategic response-selection bottleneck and central capacity sharing models of dual-task performance, the underadditivity of the effects of SOA and stimulus type suggests that semantic interference emerges before lexical response-selection. However, in more recent studies, additive effects of SOA and stimulus type were obtained. Here, we examined the discrepancy in results between these studies in 6 experiments in which we systematically manipulated various dimensions on which these earlier studies differed, including tasks, materials, stimulus types, and SOAs. In all our experiments, additive effects of SOA and stimulus type on naming latencies were obtained. These results strongly suggest that the semantic interference effect arises after perceptual and conceptual processing, during lexical response-selection or later. We discuss several theoretical alternatives with respect to their potential to account for the discrepancy between the present results and other studies showing underadditivity. Keywords: dual-task performance, picture-word interference, response-selection bottleneck, semantic interference, Stroop An important question in the psychology of language concerns how speakers select from memory the words that they want to produce. This ability, called lexical selection, is a topic of much research in the field of word production. One way of studying lexical selection consists of presenting participants with pictured objects paired with superimposed distractor words, a paradigm called picture-word interference (PWI; see Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2009;Glaser, 1992;Roelofs, 2007, for reviews). Participants are instructed to name the pictures and to ignore the distractors. The relation the distractor word bears with the picture name (e.g., semantic, phonological, etc.) is manipulated and effects obtained are thought to inform researchers about processes involved in word production.One specific effect has long been assumed to provide evidence about the nature of lexical selection: semantic interference (e.g., Damian & Martin, 1999;Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999;Roelofs, 1992;Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990;Starreveld & La Heij, 1996). This effect concerns the finding that response times (RTs) are longer for picture naming when the dis...

show abstract

Section: The Nature Of the Processing Bottleneckmentioning

confidence: 97%

Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance.

Piai¹,

Roelofs²,

Schriefers³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, Schumacher et al (1999) showed that additive effects of SOA and response selection difficulty were replaced by underadditive interactions after considerable practice. They interpreted these results as evidence that postponement of response selection was a cautionary strategy used in early stages of practice.…”

Section: The Prp Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm.

Luria¹,

Meiran²

2003

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined the role of online order control in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. In the first 2 experiments, participants switched between color-letter and letter-color orders so that subtask order was isolated as the only element being switched. The results indicated that order switching impaired the 2 PRP responses and modulated the PRP effect. Importantly, these effects were reduced by advance preparation, demonstrating that order representation was activated before the subtasks themselves. Preparation for subtask order did not reflect preparation for hand order, as shown in Experiment 3. In addition, there was no evidence that subtask order information dissipated between trials. The relevance of the results to theories of the PRP paradigm and task switching is discussed.Many everyday tasks consist of multiple actions. While performing these multistep tasks, one has to follow a series of subtasks, and often each subtask is dependent on the outcome of a preceding one. Because each subtask can also be independentnamely, it can be executed alone-organization of subtasks in the proper order is a key element for successful performance. This article focuses on providing evidence that explicit subtask order information is used for online order control and is activated in the initial stages of multistep tasks.Models of action address representation of order by assuming that order is explicitly (e

show abstract

“…In the case of a movement production bottleneck, sub-additive difficulty would be observed even with serial response selection because of the second bottleneck. Schumacher, et al (1999) At first blush, it might appear that ACT-R/PM should not be able to explain sub-additive difficulty effects, since the underlying ACT-R production system should not be able to do response selection in parallel for multiple tasks, as ACT-R can only fire one production per cycle. However, as noted by Schumacher, et al (1999), the motor system in EPIC is effectively a serial bottleneck system; each motor unit is itself serial.…”

Section: Response Selection Bottlenecksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Schumacher, et al (1999) At first blush, it might appear that ACT-R/PM should not be able to explain sub-additive difficulty effects, since the underlying ACT-R production system should not be able to do response selection in parallel for multiple tasks, as ACT-R can only fire one production per cycle. However, as noted by Schumacher, et al (1999), the motor system in EPIC is effectively a serial bottleneck system; each motor unit is itself serial. Because most of ACT-R/PM's motor system is based on EPIC's, this makes ACT-R/PM effectively a double-bottleneck system, much like the idea proposed by De Jong (1993).…”

Section: Response Selection Bottlenecksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing.

Byrne

Anderson

2001

Psychological Review

148

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes ACT-R/PM, an integrated theory of cognition, perception, and action which consists of the ACT-R production system and a set of perceptual-motor modules like those found in EPIC (Meyer & Kieras, 1997a, 1997b. Each module (including cognition) is essentially serial, but they run in parallel with one another. ACT-R/PM can model simple dual tasks such as the psychological refractory period (PRP), including subtle results previously explained with EPIC. The principal difference between the theories is that in EPIC, productions implementing central cognition can fire in parallel whereas in ACT-R/PM they fire serially. Three PRP-like experiments were run employing more demanding cognitive requirements, and indicated that cognitive processing for the two tasks did not overlap. ACT-R's activation-based retrieval processes are critical in accounting for the timing of these tasks and for explaining the dual-task performance decrement. integrated theories that seriously attempt to integrate cognition, perception, and action. This is surprising, since there are numerous domains to which such a theory might be applicable, such as mental workload, manual tracking, divided attention, time and motion analysis, paced tasks and time stress, resource-conflict matrices, some kinds of errors, the eye-hand span in typewriting, and many more. This is not to say there have been no theories concerned with such integration. The Model Human Processor (MHP) of Card, Moran, and Newell (1983) was originally presented as a summary of the state of the field's current knowledge about cognition and performance. The MHP, while never implemented as a computational model, specified the timing for cognition,

show abstract

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

Cited by 109 publications

References 64 publications

Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance.

Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance.

Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm.

Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About