Two experiments employed dichotic listening and a visual analogue of dichotic listening. Detection of signals on a nonattended channel deteriorated for both modalities as the signal rate increased. However, deterioration in the primary task, vocal shadowing, was greater for auditory presentations. A third study showed that modality differences disappeared when shadowing difficulties were equated. In addition, it was argued from experiments 1 and 2 that increasing signal rate led to an increase in the selectivity of attention.
At the point where shadowing began to deteriorate there was evidence of reciprocity or trading relations between primary and secondary tasks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerlyneD. E., 1970, “Attention as a problem in behavior theory”, in Attention: Contemporary Theory and Analysis, Ed. MostofskyD. E. (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York), pp. 25–49.
2.
BroadbentD. E., 1954, “The role of auditory localisation and attention in memory span”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 191–196.
3.
BroadbentD. E.GregoryM., 1963, “Division of attention and the decision theory of signal detection”, Proceedings of the Royal Society (B), 158, 222–231.
4.
GreenwaldA. G., 1970, “Selective attention as a function of signal rate”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 48–52.
5.
MadsenM.RollinsH.SenfG., 1970, “Variables affecting immediate memory for bisensory stimuli: Eye—ear analogue studies of dichotic listening”, Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 83, 1–16.
6.
MorayN., 1969, Attention: Selective Processes in Vision and Hearing (Academic Press, New York).
7.
MorayN.O'BrienT., 1967, “Signal-detection theory applied to selective listening”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 42, 765–772.
8.
NeisserE., 1969, “Selective reading: A method for the study of visual attention”, paper presented at the 19th International Congress of Psychology, London.
9.
OgilvieJ.CreelmanD., 1968, “Maximum-likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic curve parameters”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 5, 377–391.
10.
RobinsonG., 1972, “The delayed auditory feedback effect is a function of speech rate”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 95, 1–5.
11.
SampsonH.HorrocksJ., 1967, “Binocular rivalry and immediate memory”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 224–231.
12.
SampsonH.SpongP., 1961a, “Binocular fixation and immediate memory”, British Journal of Psychology, 52, 239–248.
13.
SampsonH.SpongP., 1961b, “Handedness, eye dominance and immediate memory”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 173–180.
14.
TreismanA., 1969, “Strategies and models of selective attention”, Psychological Review, 76, 282–299.
15.
TreismanA.DaviesA., 1972, “Divided attention to ear and eye”, unpublished manuscript cited in KahnemanD. (1973) Attention and Effort (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
16.
UnderwoodG.MorayN., 1971, “Shadowing and monitoring for selective attention”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 284–295.
17.
WhelanE., 1968, “Visual perception and cerebral dominance”, Ph.D. Thesis (unpublished), University of Sheffield, reported in Moray, 1969.
