A change in subtask order in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm increases the effect of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) on the second response. We used a paradigm with cued, randomly determined subtask order to test the hypothesis that this SOA by order switch overadditivity reflects order control, via “copying” stimulus order. In Experiments 1a and 1b, overadditivity was evident only with insufficient opportunity for cue-based order control. In Experiment 2, overadditivity was decreased by using the same set of stimuli in the two subtasks, presumably by removing the opportunity to rely on stimulus order. In Experiment 3, removing the order cue increased the overadditivity, presumably because control was based solely upon copying stimulus order. The results indicate interactive top-down and bottom-up order control. Implications to theories of the PRP paradigm are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportAWylieG (2000). Selection-for-action in competing (Stroop) tasks: “Task-switching” stimulus–response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention & performanceXVIII, (pp. 35–70)Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
2.
BotvinickMPlautDC (2004). Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to routine sequential action and its pathologies.Psychological Review111, 395–429.
3.
CooperRShalliceT (2000). Contention scheduling and the control of routine activities.Cognitive Neuropsychology17, 297–338.
4.
De JongR (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology48A, 2–25.
5.
DuncanJ (1977). Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performanceVI, (pp. 49–61)Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6.
FagotC (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switchingUnpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, USA.
7.
GaravanH (1998). Serial attention within working memory.Memory and Cognition26, 263–276.
8.
GoschkeTKuhlJ (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition19, 1211–1226.
9.
GrafmanJ (1995). Similarities and distinctions among current models of prefrontal cortical functions. In J. Grafman, K. Holyoak, & F. Boller (Eds.), Structure and function of the human prefrontal cortex (769, pp. 337–368) New York:New York Academy of Sciences.
10.
HartleyAALittleDM (1999). Age related differences and similarities in dual task interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General128, 416–449.
11.
HommelB (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus–response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performanceXVIII, (pp. 247–273)Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
12.
HübnerRFuttererTSteinhauserM (2001). On attentional control as a source of residual shift costs: Evidence from two-component task shifts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27, 640–653.
13.
KochI (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27, 1474–1486.
14.
LashleyKS (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior(pp. 112–136)New York:Wiley.
15.
LiKZHLindenbergerURungerDFrenschPA (2000). The role of inhibition in the regulation of sequential action.Psychological Science11, 343–347.
16.
LoganGD (1978). Attention in character-classification tasks: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General107, 32–63.
17.
LoganGDGordonRD (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations.Psychological Review108, 393–434.
18.
LuriaRMeiranN (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance29, 556–574.
19.
MacKayDG (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skillsNew York:Springer-Verlag.
20.
MarshRLHicksJLBinkML (1998). The activation of completed, uncompleted, and partially completed intentions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition24, 350–361.
21.
MarshRLHicksJLBryanES (1999). The activation of unrelated and canceled intentions.Memory and Cognition27, 320–327.
22.
MayrUKeeleSW (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General129, 4–26.
23.
MeiranN (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task switching.Psychological Research63, 234–249.
24.
MeyerDEKierasDE (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1.Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review104, 3–65.
25.
MeyerDEKierasDE (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2.Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review104, 749–791.
26.
NavonDMillerJ (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single bottleneck notion.Cognitive Psychology44, 193–251.
27.
NiemiPNataanenR (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time.Psychological Bulletin89, 133–162.
28.
NormanDAShalliceT (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. Davidson, G. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self regulation: Advances in research and theory (4, pp. 1–18) New York:Plenum.
29.
PashlerH (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance10, 358–377.
30.
PashlerH (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance16, 826–842.
31.
PashlerH (1994). Dual task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory.Psychological Bulletin116, 220–244.
32.
PashlerH (1998). The psychology of attentionCambridge, MA:MIT Press.
33.
PashlerHJohnstonJC (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology41A, 19–45.
34.
PosnerMIBoiesSJ (1971). Components of attention.Psychological Review78, 391–408.
35.
RubinsteinJSMeyerDEEvansJE (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance27, 763–797.
36.
SchumacherEHLauberEJGlassJMZurbriggenELGmeindlLKierasDE (1999). et al Concurrent response selection in dual task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance25, 791–814.
37.
ShafferLE (1965). Choice reaction with variable S–R mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology70, 284–288.
38.
ShalliceTBurgessPWSchonFBaxterDM (1989). The origins of utilization behavior.Brain112, 1587–1598.
39.
SzameitatAJSchubertTMüllerKvon CramonDY (2002). Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience14, 1184–1199.
40.
TombuMJolicoeurP (2000, November). Can the central bottleneck be eliminated? Structural versus strategic accounts of the PRP effectPoster session presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA, USA.
41.
TombuMJolicoeurP (2003). A capacity sharing model of dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19, 3–18.
42.
WaszakFHommelBAllportA (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus–response bindings in task-shift costs.Cognitive Psychology46, 361–413.
43.
WelfordAT (1952). The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high-speed performance: A review and a theory.British Journal of Psychology43, 2–19.
