Abstract
When two stimuli are to be processed in rapid succession, reaction time (RT) to the second stimulus is delayed. The slowing of RT has been attributed to a single processing bottleneck at response selection (RS) or to a central bottleneck following the initiation of the first response. The hypothesis of a response initiation bottleneck is mainly based on reports of underadditive interactions between stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) and the number of stimulus—response alternatives (simple vs. two-choice response). The present study tested the hypothesis of a response initiation bottleneck by recording the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), a brain wave, emerging during or immediately following RS. The LRP findings were consistent with a central bottleneck but did not support the late bottleneck hypothesis. Instead, the LRP provided direct evidence that the underadditive interaction of number of alternatives and SOA is due to an increase of response anticipations in the simple response condition.
Article PDF
References
Coles, M. G. H. (1989). Modern mind—brain reading: Psychophysiology, physiology, and cognition.Psychophysiology,26, 251–269.
De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 965–980.
Donders, F. C. (1868). Over de snelheid van psychische processen: Onderzoekingen gedaan in het physiologisch laboratorium der Utrechtse Hoogeschool.[On the speed of mental processes: Research from the physiological laboratory of the University of Utrecht].Tweede Reek,11, 92–120.
Fletcher, B. C., &Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1978). The changing pattern of perceptual analytic strategies and response selection with practice in a two-choice reaction time task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,30, 417–427.
Frith, C. D., &Done, D. J. (1986). Routes to action in reaction time tasks.Psychological Research,48, 169–177.
Ilan, A. B., &Miller, J. (1999). A distinction between the initiation and the continuation of response preparation.Psychophysiology,36, 209–219.
Karlin, L., &Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,20, 167–178.
Keele, S. W. (1973).Attention and human performance. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Leuthold, H., Sommer, W., &Ulrich, R. (1996). Partial advance information and response preparation: Inferences from the lateralized readiness potential.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 307–323.
McCann, R. S., &Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 471–484.
Meyer, D. E., &Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena.Psychological Review,104, 749–791.
Miller, J., &Hackley, S. A. (1992). Electrophysiological evidence for temporal overlap among contingent mental processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 195–209.
Miller, J., Patterson, T., &Ulrich, R. (1998). Jackknife-based method for measuring LRP onset latency differences.Psychophysiology,35, 99–115.
Miller, J., &Ulrich, R. (1998). Locus of the effect of the number of alternative responses: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1215–1231.
Osman, A., &Moore, C. M. (1993). The locus of dual-task interference: Psychological refractory effects on movement-related brain potentials.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1292–1312.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory.Psychological Bulletin,116, 220–244.
Pashler, H., &Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 19–45.
Sanders, A. F. (1998).Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schubert, T. (1996). Die Analyse von Interferenzeffekten bei der gleichzeitigen Bearbeitung zweier Aufgaben [The analysis of interference in overlapping tasks].Zeitschrift für Psychologie,4, 625–656.
Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 408–425.
Smulders, F. T. Y. (1993).The selectivity of age effects on information processing: Response times and electrophysiology. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Smulders, F. T. Y., Kenemans, J. L., &Kok, A. (1996). Effects of task variables on measures of the mean onset latency of LRP depend on the scoring method.Psychophysiology,33, 194–205.
Sommer, W., Leuthold, H., Abdel-Rahman, R., &Pfütze, E.-M. (1997). Die Lokalisierung des Gruppierungseffektes bei überlappenden Aufgaben [The localization of the grouping effect in overlapping tasks].Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie,44, 103–117.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method.Acta Psychologica,30, 276–315.
Van Selst, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (1997). Decision and response in dualtask interference.Cognitive Psychology,33, 266–307.
Welford, A. T. (1952). The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high speed performance: A review and a theory.British Journal of Psychology,43, 2–19.
Welford, A. T. (1980). The single-channel hypothesis. In A. T. Welford (Ed.),Reaction times (pp. 215–252). London: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sommer, W., Leuthold, H. & Schubert, T. Multiple bottlenecks in information processing? An electrophysiological examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8, 81–88 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196142
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196142