On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies

Miller, Jeff; Ulrich, Rolf; Rolke, Bettina

doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.08.003

Cited by 140 publications

(225 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

205

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The assumption that dual-task performance is not constrained by a structural responseselection bottleneck is supported by several findings (e.g., Fan et al, 2012;Hübner & Lehle, 2007;Israel & Cohen, 2011;Kahneman, 1973;Karlin & Kerstenbaum, 1968;Lehle & Hübner, 2009;Leonhard & Ulrich, 2011;Logan & Gordon, 2001;Meyer & Kieras, 1997a, 1997bNavon & Miller, 2002;Pannebakker et al, 2011;Schvaneveldt, 1969;Szameitat et al, 2002Szameitat et al, , 2006Tombu & Jolicoeur, 2003). For example, there is evidence that the magnitude of dual-task interference can be eliminated with practice (e.g., Schumacher et al, 1999Schumacher et al, , 2001, but see Ruthruff et al, 2006;Van Selst et al, 1999) or by increasing the number of short SOAs in an experimental block of trials (Miller et al, 2009). The malleability of dual-task interference should not be observed under a structural response-selection bottleneck.…”

Section: Passive Queuing and Active Scheduling Accountsmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…If the semantic interference effect arises before response selection in picture naming (e.g., during perceptual and conceptual processing of the picture), the effect may be absorbed while response selection in the tone discrimination task is taking place and picture naming waits in queue. Consequently, the semantic interference effect will disappear in concurrent task performance, as empirically observed by Dell'Acqua et al and Ayora et al In contrast, if the semantic interference effect arises in lexical response selection (e.g., Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2009;Hantsch et al, 2005;Levelt et al, 1999;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 2003Starreveld & La Heij, 1996), the effect should not have been absorbed according to the response-selection bottleneck account (Pashler, 1994(Pashler, , 1998Pashler & Johnston, 1989), contrary to what Dell'Acqua et al and Ayora et al observed. However, although very influential, the assumption of a structural response-selection bottleneck is debatable (e.g., Fan et al, 2012;Hübner & Lehle, 2007;Israel & Cohen, 2011;Kahneman, 1973;Karlin & Kerstenbaum, 1968;Lehle & Hübner, 2009;Leonhard & Ulrich, 2011;Meyer & Kieras, 1997a, 1997bMiller et al, 2009;Navon & Miller, 2002;Pannebakker et al, 2011;Schumacher et al, 1999Schumacher et al, , 2001Schvaneveldt, 1969;Szameitat et al, 2002Szameitat et al, , 2006Tombu & Jolicoeur, 2003). According to alternative accounts of dual-task performance, response selection for two tasks may occur in parallel depending on the strategic choice of participants concerning the amount of overlap between tasks (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming

Piai

Roelofs

2013

Acta Psychologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers have found no agreement on whether dual-task interference in language performance, such as dual-task interference from tone discrimination on picture naming, reflects passive queuing or active scheduling of processes for each task. According to a passive-queuing account, while a central response-selection bottleneck is occupied by the tone discrimination task, picture naming is held in a passive queue until the bottleneck is freed. In contrast, according to an active-scheduling account, participants determine the order in which the tasks proceed, monitor progress on the tasks, suspend picture naming and hold it in working memory, and determine when to resume picture naming. Here, we report a study that assessed the relative merits of the queuing and scheduling accounts by examining whether the magnitude of dual-task interference in picture naming is associated with individual differences in the capacity of monitoring and updating of working memory representations, as assessed by the operation-span task. We observed that the updating/monitoring ability correlated with the speed of picture naming and with the magnitude of the interference from tone discrimination on picture naming. These results lend support to the active-scheduling account of dual-task interference in picture naming.

show abstract

Section: Passive Queuing and Active Scheduling Accountsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming

Piai

Roelofs

2013

Acta Psychologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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

“…Indeed, recent studies have shown that processing optimization seems to play a crucial role in dual tasking. Participants tend to optimize not only central processing mode (Miller et al, 2009) but also central processing order (Leonhard et al, 2011) when confronted with unequally demanding tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was expected that participants would-at short, but not at long SOAs-tend to process the relatively short central stage of Task 2 before the time-consuming central stage of Task 1 and consequently emit the response to Task 2 before the response to Task 1. At short SOA, such a reversed processing order might reduce total reaction time (TRT ¼ RT1 + RT2) and therefore optimize task performance (Miller et al, 2009). As in the study of Sigman and Dehaene (2006), participants received no restriction concerning response order.…”

Section: Possible Determinants Of Central Processing Order and Previomentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Central Processing Order in Psychological Refractory Period Paradigms: Central Arrival Times, Detection Times, or Preparation?

Leonhard

2011

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three psychological refractory period (PRP) experiments were conducted to assess the effect of central arrival times at the bottleneck on task order scheduling. In Experiment 1, a visual first task (plusminus symbol discrimination) was combined with an auditory second task (left-right tone judgement) in a standard PRP paradigm with constant task order. In Experiment 2, the order of the tasks varied unpredictably. In Experiment 3, visual-auditory dual-task trials were randomly mixed with singletask trials. To dissociate central arrival times from stimulus detection times, the perceptual stage of the visual task was extended using stimulus degradation. Most importantly, no evidence for a firstcome, first-served principle at the central bottleneck was found with the employed paradigms. Instead, the results indicated that preparation (Experiment 1) and the detection times of the stimuli (Experiments 2 and 3) were the main determinants of central processing order in the present study. In the light of previous research, the results indicate that central processing order can be influenced by various factors. The interplay between these factors seems to depend highly on the conditions and requirements of the employed experimental paradigm.Keywords: Psychological refractory period; Dual tasking; Cognitive control.Human ability to divide attention between different tasks has engaged psychological research for more than 100 years (Pashler, 1994). Thereby, it was repeatedly shown that even in relatively easy tasks such as choice reaction time tasks, performance is impaired when two of these tasks have to be processed at once. One experimental paradigm that has often been employed for the analysis of dual-task impairment is the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. This paradigm enables the microanalysis of the processes involved in dual tasking. Basically, the temporal overlap of two choice reaction time tasks is manipulated, and impairments in reaction time and response accuracy for the two tasks are assessed. In a typical PRP experiment, participants are presented Correspondence should be addressed to Tanja Leonhard, Abteilung für Allgemeine und Biologische Psychologie, Fachbereich Psychologie, Universität Tübinge, Friedrichstr. 21, 72072, Tübingen, Germany. E-mail: tanja.leonhard@uni-tuebingen.de This research was supported by DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) UL 116/11-1. We thank Claire Fielding and Sarah Schawohl for their assistance in data collection as well as Daniel Bratzke for helpful comments. We also thank Ines Jentzsch and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. 2012

show abstract

On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies

Cited by 140 publications

References 72 publications

Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming

Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming

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

Determinants of Central Processing Order in Psychological Refractory Period Paradigms: Central Arrival Times, Detection Times, or Preparation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About