Increased demands on cognitive control trigger changes in processing mode. One such modulation involves a shift from parallel to serial processing. This study assessed the role of control demand in determining whether dual-task processing is performed serially or in parallel. We used two critical indices, based on the response-selection bottleneck model, to show that response selection was serial when a task switch was involved, but partly parallel when the simultaneous performance of the tasks did not involve task switching.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeilockL.S.BertenthalI.B.McCoyA.M.CarrH.T. (2004). Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 373–379.
BraverT.S.ReynoldsJ.R.DonaldsonD.I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39, 713–726.
4.
De JongR. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965–980.
5.
De JongR. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 2–25.
6.
GrattonG.ColesM.G.DonchinE. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.
7.
GrayR. (2004). Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: Expertise differences, choking and slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 42–54.
8.
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.
9.
HirstK.KalmarD. (1987). Characterizing attentional resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 68–81.
10.
KarlinL.KestenbaumR. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167–178.
11.
LoganG.D.GordonR.D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.
12.
LoganG.D.SchulkindM.D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072–1090.
13.
LuriaR.MeiranN. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 556–574.
14.
MeiranN. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.
15.
MeiranN. (2000b). The reconfiguration of the stimulus task-set and the response task set during task switching. InMonsellS.DriverJ.(Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp.377–400). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
MeyerD.E.KierasD.E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3–65.
17.
MeyerD.E.KierasD.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.
18.
MonsellS.DriverJ.(Eds.). (2000). Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
NavonD.MillerJ. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435–448.
20.
NormanD.A.ShalliceT. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour. InDavidsonR.J.SchwartzG.E.ShapiroD.(Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation (Vol. 4, pp.1–18). New York: Plenum.
21.
OrietC.JolicoeurP. (2003). Absence of perceptual processing during reconfiguration of task set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 1036–1049.
22.
PashlerH. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358–377.
23.
PashlerH. (1994a). Dual task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.
24.
PashlerH. (1994b). Overlapping mental operations in serial performance with preview. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 161–191.
25.
PashlerH. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
PashlerH.JohnstonJ.C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19–45.
27.
RabbittP.VyasS. (1981). Processing a display even after you make a response to it: How perceptual errors can be corrected. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 223–239.
28.
SchumacherE.H.SeymourT.L.GlassJ.M.KierasD.E.MeyerD.E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central attentional bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101–108.
29.
SmithE.E.JonidesJ. (1999). Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science, 283, 1657–1661.
30.
SmithM.C. (1969). The effect of varying information on the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 30, 220–231.
31.
SternbergS. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donder's method. InKosterW.G.(Ed.), Attention and performance II (pp.276–315). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
32.
TelfordC.W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1–36.
33.
WaltonE.M.DevlinT.J.RushworthF.S.M. (2004). Interactions between decision making and performance monitoring within prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1259–1265.
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.
