Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
注意力资源限制与双任务的相互干扰机制
吴彦文;游旭群;李海霞
(1天水师范学院心理系, 天水 741001) (2陕西师范大学心理学院, 西安 710062)
Mechanisms of Attentional Resource Limitations and Dual-task Interference
Wu Yanwen;You Xuqun;Li Haixia
(1 Department of Psychology, Tianshui Normal University, Tianshui 741001, China) (2 School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710062, China)
全文: PDF(468 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

采用心理不应期研究范式, 两个反应时实验检测了注意力资源分配的特征以及双任务的相互干扰机制。每次实验中, 要求被试快速、相继对高低音辨别任务(T1)和Stroop任务(T2)作出选择性反应, T1和T2间采用6种不同的时间间隔(SOA), 以系统考察不同SOA条件下两个任务的反应时走势。结果发现:(1) 在重叠的双任务情境中, T1的中枢加工导致在T2上出现显著的PRP效应, T2的中枢反应选择对T1的反应选择和反应执行加工同样产生显著的影响。SOA以及T2的难度与复杂度实质性地影响了T1的反应选择和反应执行加工。(2) 当两个任务同时需要进行中枢反应选择加工时, 一个任务占用更多的注意资源将导致另一任务获得较少的注意资源, 注意资源量的多寡直接决定了该任务的加工效率。(3) 两个任务的加工相互影响、相互制约, 这种制约机制不仅仅存在于中枢反应选择阶段, 在反应执行阶段仍然存在。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
吴彦文
游旭群
李海霞
关键词 双任务心理不应期反应选择注意资源Stroop任务    
Abstract

In classic Psychological-Refractory-Period (PRP) paradigms, decreasing stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA) between the two tasks typically leads to increasing reaction time (RT2) to the second task (T2), but there is no influence on the reaction time (RT1) to the first task (T1). Traditionally, the causes of this interference have been considered to be the limitations of attentional resources or the inherent nature of central bottleneck. The PRP effect has been extensively studied and has been traditionally explained by Pashler’s response selection bottleneck (RSB) model, which proposes the processing of one task consists of three stages: (1) perceptual identification stage, which selects the task-relevant stimulus and extracts relevant attributes of said stimulus; (2) response selection (bottleneck) stage, which decides upon the appropriate motor response; (3) response execution stage, which mainly executes explicit actions. Perceptual identification stage and response execution stage were generally assumed to operate in parallel with other cognitive processing, but the bottleneck stage was assumed to operate sequentially, meaning the stage of T2 response selection was often postponed until the corresponding stage of response selection of T1 had been completed. Tombu and Jolicoeur (2003) described the Central Capacity Sharing (CCS) model, assuming that the capacity limitations of the central stags were not all or none and the processing of both tasks occurred at reducing rates due to the sharing of limited common resources. Thus, the two models had different predictions to the RT1. The RSB model assumed that T1 could get access to the bottleneck as soon as required, so RT1 remained the same at all SOA, whereas the CCS model predicted that RT1 increased with decreasing SOA. The present research used a standard PRP paradigm, in two reaction time experiments, in which participants made speeded responses to both a tone (T1) and a Stroop task (T2), the two tasks arriving in rapid succession, and stimulus intervals presenting with varying SOA. The aim is to examine the predictions of the RSB model and the CCS model, in the meantime exploring the limitations of attentional resources and the interference mechanisms in dual-task situations. The results showed that: (1) In the overlapping tasks paradigm, when T1 was processing in the central bottleneck, the response to T2 was heavily affected by the T1, and the effect of PRP was significant. Varied SOA and different difficulty T2 information substantially influenced the response selection and response execution on T1. (2) When two tasks demanded central response selection processing at the same time, the one task using more available attention resources would lead to the other task using less attention resources. The amount of resources directly determined the processing efficiency of this task. (3) There existed interference in dual-task situations, this interference not only existed in the central response selection stage, but also existed in the stage of response execution. Taken together, RT1 effects may occur when central resources are shared between the Task 1 and Task 2 processes. These results provide strong support for CCS models of dual-task interference in the overlapping tasks paradigm.

Key wordsdual-task    psychological refractory period    response selection    attentional resource    Stroop task
收稿日期: 2013-05-15      出版日期: 2014-02-25
基金资助:

教育部人文社会科学基金(项目号:09YJCXLX025)资助。

通讯作者: 游旭群   
引用本文:   
吴彦文;游旭群;李海霞. 注意力资源限制与双任务的相互干扰机制[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00174.
Wu Yanwen;You Xuqun;Li Haixia. Mechanisms of Attentional Resource Limitations and Dual-task Interference. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(2): 174-184.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00174      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2014/V46/I2/174
[1] 杨海波;赵欣;汪洋;张磊;王瑞萌; 张毅;王力. PTSD青少年执行功能缺陷的情绪特异性[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 643-652.
[2] 黄碧娟;封洪敏;司继伟;张杰;王翔艳. 双任务协调、任务呈现方式影响成人算术策略执行:估算证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 671-683.
[3] 艾继如;张红段;司继伟;卢淳;张堂正. 任务呈现方式、双任务反应顺序影响算术估算策略选择与执行[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(10): 1248-1257.
[4] 纪丽燕;陈宁轩;丁锦红;魏萍. 奖赏预期调节局部注意干扰效应[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(6): 721-733.
[5] 刘英杰;郭春彦;魏萍. 知觉负载影响注意选择和冲突解决的系列效应[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(9): 1271-1280.
[6] 魏柳青;张学民;李永娜;马玉. 视听通道双任务对多目标追踪的影响:干扰还是促进?[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(6): 727-739.
[7] 魏萍;康冠兰;丁锦红;郭春彦. 奖赏预期对面孔情绪加工的影响:一项事件相关电位研究[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(4): 437-449.
[8] 冷英;卢家楣;金丽;潘发达;陈燕;沈永江. RSVP任务下双刺激重复的优势与劣势[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(3): 298-311.
[9] 白学军;刘湍丽;沈德立. 部分线索效应的认知抑制过程:情绪Stroop任务证据[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(2): 143-155.
[10] 尹华站;李丹;袁祥勇;黄希庭. 跨通道情境下双任务范式与计时中断范式中的效应比较[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(8): 860-873.
[11] 谭金凤;伍姗姗;王小影;王丽君;赵远方;陈安涛. 奖励驱动的双任务加工过程中的分离脑机制:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(3): 285-297.
[12] 王岩;辛婷婷;刘兴华;张韵;卢焕华;翟彦斌. 正念训练的去自动化效应:Stroop和前瞻记忆任务证据[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(9): 1180-1188.
[13] 冷英,谭小英,曾庆,程晓荣,卢家楣. 重复刺激的末位优势效应[J]. , 2012, 44(6): 766-776.
[14] 唐丹丹,刘培朵,陈安涛. 冲突观察能诱发冲突适应[J]. , 2012, 44(3): 295-303.
[15] 魏萍;康冠兰. 注意捕获效应受知觉负载及目标与干扰项距离的共同影响[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(11): 1454-1462.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn