Different difficulty manipulations interact differently with task emphasis: Evidence for multiple resources.

Gopher, Daniel; Brickner, Michael S.; Navon, David

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.8.1.146

Cited by 81 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The hypothesis that concurrence is an option would be challenged, if it was shown that there was no evidence for concurrence even when concurrent processing was called for, namely when the performer had some reason for resorting to concurrent processing that outweighed its disadvantages. Concurrent processing might be preferable either when the tasks require sustained attention (e.g., retention in STM) or periodic monitoring (e.g., tracking) or when heavy time pressure makes queuing fatal to the accuracy of the postponed task (e.g., Gopher, Brickner, & Navon, 1982;Navon, Gopher, Chillag, & Spitz, 1984;Roldan, 1979;Sperling & Melchner, 1978;Tsang, Shaner, & Vidulich, 1995;reviews in Gopher, 1994;Gopher & Donchin, 1986;Wickens, 1984). However, advocates of the single-bottleneck notion have been expending most of their effort in demonstrating queuing in the overlapping tasks paradigm that does not call for concurrent processing.…”

Section: How Relevant Is the Paradigm Anyway?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion

Navon

Miller

2002

Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

338

359

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The model of a single central bottleneck for human information processing is critically examined. Most evidence cited in support of the model has been observed within the overlapping tasks paradigm. It is shown here that most findings obtained within that paradigm and that were used to support the model are also consistent with a simple resource model. The most prominent findings are the millisecondfor-millisecond slope at the left of the RT2-SOA curve, the high RT1-RT2 correlation, the additivity of the effects on RT2 of SOA and of the difficulty of selecting R2, and the washout of the effect of S2 discriminability on RT2 in a dual-task condition. In addition, the asymmetry of the effects of the dual-task requirement on RT1 and RT2 can be accounted for by the resource model provided that it assumes uneven allocation of resources, which is quite reasonable in view of the task asymmetry inherent in the demand characteristics of the paradigm. The same is true for two other findings that appear to support the single-bottleneck model-that in the dual-task condition, the demand of the first task affects equally RT1 and RT2 and that its effect on RT1 is the same as the corresponding effect in the singletask condition. Furthermore, the single-bottleneck model is hard to reconcile with a negative slope at the left of the RT1-SOA curve or a positive slope at the left of the IRI-SOA curve, unless augmented by ancillary assumptions that are yet to be substantiated. Representative data were fit by each of the models using its optimal set of parameters. Both models achieved quite good degrees of fit. It is further argued that since the overlapping tasks paradigm is heavily biased in favor of a speedy reaction to the stimulus that appears first, it is nonoptimal for testing the central bottleneck model. Finally, the bottleneck model is examined in terms of other scientific criteria.

show abstract

Section: How Relevant Is the Paradigm Anyway?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion

Navon

Miller

2002

Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

338

359

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies supporting the resource explanation abound in the literature (e.g., Beatty, 1982;Fracker & Wickens, 1989;Friedman et aI., 1988;Gopher, Brickner, & Navon, 1982;Tsang & Wickens, 1988) and will not be reviewed here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resource scarcity and outcome conflict in time-sharing performance

Tsang

Shaner

1995

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of the resource-scarcity and outcome-conflict views in explaining dual-task interference was examined. A discrete-continuous task pair was purposely chosen to allow fine-grained analysis of time-shared performance. The relative priority of the dual task was manipulated by a secondary task technique to test for performance tradeoff that would be indicative of resource allocation. The temporal predictability of the discrete stimuli was manipulated to examine possible strategic avoidance of interference. The moment-by-moment data did not reveal any evidence for a switching strategy. It was concluded that the intricate interference patterns could be more easily interpreted within the resource framework than within the outcome-conflict framework.Time-shared performance typically degrades from single-task performance level. The present study examines the viability of two explanations for this degradation: resource scarcity and outcome conflict.First, it is important to make clear what is meant by timesharing performance. Time-sharing in the computer domain refers to several terminals accessing a central processor at different times. In other words, one central processor serves several terminals by rapidly switching between them. Time-sharing in this sense is sometimes used in the psychological literature. For example, Hirst and Kalmar (1987) used time-sharing to refer to rapid switching between the processing oftwo tasks. In contrast, time-sharing in the present paper is used along the tradition followed by Gopher (1993), Friedman, Polson, andDafoe (1988), Moray (1967), andWickens (1990). Here, time-sharing refers to the simultaneous processing of two or more tasks. Resource TheoryAccording to resource theories (e.g., Gopher, 1986;Kahneman, 1973), time-shared performance will compete for limited resources if certain conditions are met.

show abstract

“…In different tasks, practice has been shown to promote (l) perceptual unitization of features and forms (see, e.g., Pellegrino, Doane, Fischer, & Alderton, 1991), (2) strengthening of stimulus-tointerpretation associations (e.g., associations of stimuli to word and nonword categories in lexical decision tasks; Logan, 1990), (3) development oftime-sharing skill (see, e.g. Gopher, Brickner, & Navon, 1982), (4) incidental learning of sequential structure (see, e.g., Cohen et al, 1990), and (5) speedup ofcomponent problem-solving processes (see, e.g. Carlson et al, 1990), among other things, In general, the benefits of practice have been found to be relatively specific to the items practiced and the conditions under which they were practiced (see, e.g., Healy & Bourne, 1995;Logan, 1990) but not to the physical responses that were made (see, e.g., Cohen et al, 1990; We thank Peter Dixon, Gordon Logan, and John Wixted for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Left or right keypresses to a relevant stimulus dimension are faster when the stimulus location, although irrelevant, corresponds with that of the response than when it does not. This phenomenon, called the Simon effect, persisted across 1,800trials of practice, although its magnitude was reduced, Practice with the relevant stimulus dimension presented at a centered location had little influence on the magnitude of the Simon effect when irrelevant location was varied subsequently, and practice with location irrelevant prior to performing with location relevant slowed responses, After practice responding to stimulus location with an incompatible spatial mapping, the Simon effect was reversed (i.e, responses were slower when stimulus location corresponded with response location) when location was made irrelevant. When the response keys were labeled according to the relevant stimulus dimension (the Hedge and Marsh [1975] task variation), this reversal from practice with a spatially incompatible mapping was found for both the congruent and the incongruent relevant stimulus-response mappings, Thus, task-defmed associations between stimulus location and response location affect performance when location is changed from relevant to irrelevant, apparently through producing automatic activation of the previously associated response,

show abstract

Different difficulty manipulations interact differently with task emphasis: Evidence for multiple resources.

Cited by 81 publications

References 14 publications

Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion

Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion

Resource scarcity and outcome conflict in time-sharing performance

Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About