Abstract
Most studies using the psychological refractory period (PRP) design suggest that dual-task performance is limited by a central bottleneck. Because subjects are usually told to emphasize Task 1, however, the bottleneck might reflect a strategic choice rather than a structural limitation. To evaluate the possibility that central operations can proceed in parallel, albeit with capacity limitations, we conducted two dual-task experiments with equal task emphasis. In both experiments, subjects tended to either group responses together or respond to one task well before the other. In addition, stimulus-response compatibility effects were roughly constant across stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). At the short SOA, compatibility effects also carried over onto response times for the other task. This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with the possibility that subjects share capacity roughly equally between simultaneous central operations. However, this pattern is consistent with the existence of a structural central bottleneck.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Borger, R. (1963). The refractory period and serial choice-reactions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,15, 1–12.
Carrier, M., &Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limitations in memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1339–1348.
De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 965–989.
De Jong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A, 2–25.
Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2001, November).Dual-task costs depend on the pairings of stimulus and response modalities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.
Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., &Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dualtask performance reveals parallel response selection after practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 527–545.
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dualtask performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1368–1384.
Johnston, J. C., & Delgado, D. F. (1993, November).Bypassing the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington, DC.
Jolicoeur, P., &Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of shortterm consolidation.Cognitive Psychology,36, 138–202.
Kahneman, D. (1973).Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Keele, S. W. (1973).Attention and human performance. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Levy, J., &Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 862–869.
Lien, M.-C., &Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1260–1280.
Lien, M.-C., &Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 212–238.
Lien, M.-C., Schweickert, R., &Proctor, R. W. (2003). Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 692–712.
Logan, G. D., &Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1260–1280.
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.
McCann, R. S., Remington, R. W., &Van Selst, M. (2000). Automaticity in visual word processing: A dual-task investigation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1352–1370.
McLeod, P. (1977). Parallel processing and the psychological refractory period.Acta Psychologica,41, 381–396.
Meyer, D. E., &Kieras, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. sic mechanisms.Psychological Review,104, 3–65.
Meyer, D. E., &Kieras, D. E. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena.Psychological Review,104, 749–791.
Meyer, D. E., Kieras, D. E., Lauber, E., Schumacher, E. H., Glass, J., Zurbriggen, E., Gmeindl, L., &Apfelblat, D. (1995). Adaptive executive control: Flexible multiple-task performance without pervasive immutable response-selection bottlenecks.Acta Psychologica,90, 163–190.
Navon, D., &Miller, J. O. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion.Cognitive Psychology,44, 193–251.
Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 358–377.
Pashler, H. (1994a). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 330–342.
Pashler, H. (1994b). Overlapping mental operations in serial performance with preview.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 161–191.
Pashler, H., &Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 19–45.
Pashler, H., &Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dualtask performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.),Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., &Van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 3–21.
Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., &Remington R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 280–289.
Ruthruff, E., Miller, J. O., &Lachmann, T. (1995). Does mental rotation require central mechanisms?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 552–570.
Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., &Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or voluntary postponement?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 73–80.
Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Kieras, D. E., &Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central attentional bottleneck.Psychological Science,121, 101–108.
Schweickert, R. (1978). A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a Stroop task.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,18, 105–139.
Schweickert, R., &Townsend, J. T. (1989). A trichotomy: Interactions of factors prolonging sequential and concurrent mental processes in stochastic discrete mental (PERT) networks.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,33, 328–347.
Sommer, W., Leuthold, H., &Schubert, T. (2001). Multiple bottlenecks in information processing? An electrophysiological examination.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 81–88.
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2000, November).Is the PRP effect due to a strategic or structural bottleneck? Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans.
Tombu, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 3–18.
Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., &Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1268–1285.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by grants from the National Research Council and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The research was also supported by Grant MH45584 from the National Institute of Mental Health to H.E.P.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H.E. & Hazeltine, E. Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement?. Perception & Psychophysics 65, 801–816 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194816
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194816