Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification.

Lien, Mei-Ching; Proctor, Robert W.; Allen, Philip A.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.28.2.396

Cited by 49 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Greenwald (1972;Greenwald & Shulman, 1973) tested this ideomotor approach to dual-task interference by comparing dual-task performance for two ideomotor compatible tasks with that for other task combinations of one or two non-ideomotor compatible tasks. Consistent with ideomotor theory, the dual-task interference effect was largely reduced with two ideomotor compatible tasks (see also Greenwald, in press;Lien, Proctor, & Allen, 2002, for further discussion).…”

supporting

confidence: 52%

What is the point of motor planning?

Rosenbaum¹,

Meulenbroek²,

Vaughan³

2004

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 52%

What is the point of motor planning?

Rosenbaum¹,

Meulenbroek²,

Vaughan³

2004

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…G&S's result was recently called into question by a nonreplication (Lien, Proctor, & Allen, 2002;LP&A). Experiment 1 replicated G&S's perfect timesharing finding when instructions for the ISI ϭ 0 dual task emphasized giving simultaneous and rapid responses to simultaneous stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mean latencies of correct responses for single-task and dualtask conditions of Experiment 1, shown for the visual-manual task (A and B), the auditory-vocal task (C and D), and the average of both tasks (E and F). In Condition LPA (n ϭ 17), instructions based on those used by Lien, Proctor, and Allen (2002) emphasized that stimuli for the interstimulus interval (ISI) ϭ 0 dual-task condition were simultaneous. In Condition GS (n ϭ 16), instructions based on those used by Greenwald and Shulman (1973) urged rapid responding for all tasks and simultaneous responding in the ISI ϭ 0 condition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible.

Greenwald¹

2003

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A. G. Greenwald and H. G. Shulman (1973) found that 2 tasks characterized by ideomotor (IM) compatibility could be perfectly timeshared (i.e., performed simultaneously without mutual interference). The 2 tasks were pronouncing "A" or "B" in response to hearing those letter names, and making a manual left or right response to seeing a left-or right-positioned arrow. M.-C. Lien, R. W. Proctor, and P. A. Allen (2002) did not replicate Greenwald and Shulman's result, and concluded that their finding of perfect timesharing of 2 IM-compatible tasks might not be replicable. In the present research, Experiment 1 replicated Greenwald and Shulman's 1973 finding while also supporting the conclusion that Lien et al.'s nonreplication was due to their not instructing subjects to make 2 responses simultaneously in their timeshared task. Experiment 2 again replicated the perfect timesharing finding, using an alternative control procedure that mixed manual and vocal tasks in the same block.

show abstract

“…Both of Greenwald and Shulman's (1973) experiments showed a PRP effect when one task was ideomotor compatible and the other was S -R compatible, as did all of Lien, Proctor, and Allen's (2002) experiments, which closely replicated the methods of Greenwald and Shulman's study (see also Kantowitz &Knight, 1976, andKlapp, Porter-Graham, &Hoifjeld, 1991, for similar results with continuous tapping and shadowing tasks). Across the experiments reported by Greenwald and Shulman and by Lien, Proctor, and Allen (2002), the PRP effect tended to be larger when T2 was ideomotor compatible than when T1 was, suggesting that although serial response selection is still required for an ideomotor compatible task, it is faster than for a nonideomotor compatible task.…”

Section: Compatibility In Dual-task Performance Can Prp Effects Be Elmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Most subsequent citations of their study have also stated that the results demonstrated that the PRP effect was eliminated with two ideomotorcompatible tasks (e.g., De Jong, 1995;Meyer & Kieras, 1997a;Pashler, 2000). Lien, Proctor, and Allen (2002) questioned the generalization that the PRP effect is eliminated with two ideomotor compatible tasks because of the discrepancy in results between Greenwald and Shulman's Experiments 1 and 2. We noted that the reason for the discrepant results is not obvious because the designs of those two experiments differed in several potentially crucial respects (the aforementioned differences in instructions and SOAs, as well as the inclusion of single-task blocks in Experiment 2 but not in Experiment 1).…”

Section: Compatibility In Dual-task Performance Can Prp Effects Be Elmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection

Lien

Proctor

2002

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

199

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In studies of human information processing, the processing stages of stimulus identification and response initiation are typically distinguished from a central processing stage that is often called response selection. Issues regarding response selection have been investigated thoroughly in two areas of research, stimulus-response compatibility(SRC) and psychologicalrefractory period (PRP) effects. Fitts and Seeger (1953) were the first to demonstrate SRC effects, showing that performance depends not only on the individual properties of the stimuli and responses but also on their relation. A large empirical base regarding SRC effects exists, along with relatively sophisticated theoretical accounts of how response selection in single-task performance is affected by compatibility relations. Telford (1931) was the first to demonstrate the PRP effect, in which, when two tasks must be performed on successive stimuli, the response to the second stimulus is delayed when the interval between stimulus onsets is short. As for SRC effects, substantial empirical and theoretical work on the PRP effect has been conducted on how response selection for one task is affected by response selection for another.Although considerable research has been conducted on the SRC and PRP effects individually, few experiments have examined the two effects jointly. A reason for the lack of studies manipulating SRC in the PRP paradigm may lie in the belief that response selection for each task occurs the same way as it does in a single-task context. However, as Duncan (1979) pointed out, "In any PRP situation, the response sets of two single tasks have been combined to give a larger total set. It is perhaps unreasonable to suppose that this leaves unaffected the complexity of response choice" (p. 225). Moreover, Hommel (1998) demonstrated that considerable interaction occurs between the two tasks. The implication is that one cannot assume that response selection for each task in dual-task contexts is performed in the same manner as when each task is performed alone. Systematic examination of SRC effects in the PRP paradigm is necessary to provide a more complete understanding of the response-selection mechanism.The purpose of the present paper, therefore, was to review SRC and PRP in the literature as they relate to issues of response selection and, most importantly, to examine in detail those studies that have looked at SRC effects in the PRP paradigm for any additional insights into the nature of response selection that they afford. We begin by reviewing SRC effects and the models developed to account for them. Such effects have been obtained for relevant and irWe thank Bernhard Hommel, Hal Pashler, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M.-C. Lien, Mail Stop 262-4, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 or to R. W. Proctor, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: ...

show abstract

Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification.

Cited by 49 publications

References 34 publications

What is the point of motor planning?

What is the point of motor planning?

On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible.

Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About