People generally have difficulty doing two tasks at once. To explain this fact, theorists have proposed that central processing—the thought-like stages following perceptual encoding and preceding response processing—takes place for only one task at a time. Because this bottleneck imposes severe limits on human cognitive processes, research has attempted to find exceptions. There is now solid evidence that, at least in the laboratory, the entire bottleneck can be completely bypassed under favorable combinations of circumstances. While these findings provide a ray of hope for enabling parallel multitasking in real-world scenarios, it will not be easy to take advantage of the combination of conditions that appear to be necessary.
LoganG.D.GordonR.D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.
2.
MeyerD.E.KierasD.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.
3.
GreenwaldA.G.ShulmanH.G. (1973). On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 70–76.
4.
HazeltineE.TeagueD.IvryR.B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527–545.
5.
JohnstonJ.C.DelgadoD.F. (1993, November). Bypassing the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington, DC.
6.
LevyJ.PashlerH.BoerE. (2006). Central interference in driving: Is there any stopping the psychological refractory period?Psychological Science, 17, 228–235.
7.
LienM.-C.McCannR.S.RuthruffE.ProctorR.W. (2005). Dual-task performance with ideomotor-compatible tasks: Is the central processing bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 122–144.
8.
LienM.-C.ProctorR.W.AllenP.A. (2002). Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 396–409.
9.
PashlerH. (1992). Attentional limitations in doing two tasks at the same time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 44–48.
10.
PashlerH.CarrierM.HoffmanJ. (1993). Saccadic eye movements and dual-task interference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 51–82.
11.
RuthruffE.JohnstonJ.C.Van SelstM.V.WhitsellS.RemingtonR. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 280–289.
12.
RuthruffE.Van SelstM.JohnstonJ.C.RemingtonR.W. (in press). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or simply stage-shortening?Psychological Research.
13.
SchneiderW.ShiffrinR.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: 1. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
14.
SpelkeE.S.HirstW.NeisserU. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4, 215–230.
15.
StrayerD.L.JohnstonW.A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological Science, 12, 462–466.
16.
Van SelstM.RuthruffE.JohnstonJ.C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268–1283.
17.
WelfordA.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.
