Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica
|
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)
Download: PDF(468 KB)   Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
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.

Keywords dual-task      psychological refractory period      response selection      attentional resource      Stroop task     
Corresponding Authors: You Xuqun   
Issue Date: 25 February 2014
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Wu Yanwen
You Xuqun
Li Haixia
Cite this article:   
Wu Yanwen,You Xuqun,Li Haixia. Mechanisms of Attentional Resource Limitations and Dual-task Interference[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00174
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00174     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2014/V46/I2/174
[1] YANG Haibo; ZHAO Xin; WANG Yang; ZHANG Lei; WANG Ruimeng; ZHANG Yi; WANG Li. The emotional specificity of executive function defects of earthquake PTSD teenagers[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(5): 643-652.
[2] HUANG Bijuan; FENG Hongmin; SI Jiwei; ZHANG Jie; WANG Xiangyan. Dual-task coordination and task presentation mode influence arithmetic strategy execution in adults: Evidence from computational estimation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(6): 671-683.
[3] AI Jiru; ZHANG Hongduan; SI Jiwei; LU Chun; ZHANG Tangzheng. The effects of presenting mode, reaction order of dual task on adults’ arithmetic strategy choice and execution[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(10): 1248-1257.
[4] JI Liyan; CHEN Ningxuan; DING Jinhong; WEI Ping. Monetary Incentive Modulates the Localized Attentional Interference Effect[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(6): 721-733.
[5] ZHANG Feng;SHEN Zhimei. The Absence of the Automatic Association between Behavioral Representation Level and Psychological Distance: Evidence from a Picture-word Stroop Task[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(9): 1317-1330.
[6] WEI Liuqing;ZHANG Xuemin;LI Yongna;MA Yu. The Effects of Visual and Auditory Dual-task on Multiple Object Tracking Performance: Interference or Promotion?[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(6): 727-739.
[7] WEI Ping;KANG Guanlan;DING Jinhong;GUO Chunyan. Monetary Incentives Modulate the Processing of Emotional Facial Expressions: An ERP Study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(4): 437-449.
[8] BAI Xuejun;LIU Tuanli;SHEN Deli. The Inhibitory Process of Part-list Cuing Effect: Evidence from Emotional Stroop Task[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(2): 143-155.
[9] YIN Huazhan;LI Dan;YUAN Xiangyong;HUANG Xiting. Contrasting Effects of Dual-task Paradigm and of Timing Interruption Paradigm in Interval Timing of the Context of Culti-modal Processing[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(8): 860-873.
[10] TAN Jinfeng;WU Shanshan;WANG Xiaoying;WANG Lijun;ZHAO Yuanfang;CHEN Antao. The Mechanism of Dissociation in Reward-Based Dual-task Processing: An ERP Study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(3): 285-297.
[11] WANG Yan;XIN Ting-Ting;LIU Xing-Hua;ZHANG Yun;LU Huan-Hua;ZHAI Yan-Bin. Mindfulness Can Reduce Automatic Responding: Evidences from Stroop Task and Prospective Memory Task[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(9): 1180-1188.
[12] TANG Dan-Dan,LIU Pei-Duo,CHEN An-Tao. The Observing to Conflict Occurrence Can Induce the Conflict Adaptation[J]. , 2012, 44(3): 295-303.
[13] WEI Ping;KANG Guan-Lan. The Interaction between Perceptual Load and the Target-Distractor Distance in Regulating Stimulus-Driven Attentional Capture[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(11): 1454-1462.
[14] REN Jie,WATANABE Kazuhiko,MIYATANI Makoto. The Effect of Cognitive Task on Visual Control of Standing Posture[J]. , 2010, 42(03): 360-366.
[15] YOU Xu-Qun,ZHANG Yuan,LIU Deng-Pan. The Allocation of Attention in Judgment of Categorical Spatial Relations on Simulation Scenes[J]. , 2008, 40(07): 759-765.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech