An experiment is described in which subjects were required to search for familiar traffic signals. Half the time this was done while also engaged in a manual compensatory tracking task. The experimental variables of the visual search task were color, total number of signals exposed, the number of relevant signals, and the density of the signals. The results showed performance degradation for both tasks when the visual search and the tracking tasks were performed concurrently. Examination of the main effects and interactions suggest that, except when color was a perfect cue, visual search was a sequential process. Other theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., and Reynolds, P.On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 24, 225–235.
2.
Briggs, G. E., Peters, G. L., and Fisher, R. P.On the locus of the divided-attention effect. Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 11, 315–320.
3.
Brown, I. D. and Poulton, E. C.Measuring the spare “mental capacity” of card rivers. Ergonomics. 1961, 4, 35–40.
4.
Cahill, M. C. and Carter, R. C., Jr.Color code size for searching displays of different density. Human Factors.1976, 18, 273–280.
5.
Green, B. F. and Anderson, L. K.Color coding in a visual search task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, 51, 19–24.
6.
Johnston, W. A., Greenberg, S. N., Fisher, R. P., and Martin, D. W.Divided attention: A vehicle for monitoring memory processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83, 164–171.
7.
Martin, D. W.Residual processing capacity during verbal organization in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 96, 307–314.
8.
Martin, D. W., Marston, P. T. and Kelly, R. T.Measurement of organizational processes within memory stages. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 98, 387–395.
9.
Mcleod, P. D.Interference of “attend to and learn” tasks with tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 99, 330–333.
10.
Neisser, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
11.
Noble, M., Trumbo, D., and Fowler, F.Further evidence on secondary task interference in tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 73, 145–149.
12.
Pew, R. W.Human perceptual-motor performance. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed). Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974.
13.
Poulton, E. C.Tracking skill and manual control. New York: Academic Press, 1974.
14.
Sanders, A. F.The selective process in the functional visual field. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorkum, 1963.
15.
Shaffer, L. H.Attention in transcription skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 23, 107–112.
16.
Shiffrin, R. M. and Schneider, W.Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 127–189.
17.
Smith, S. L.Display color coding for a visual search task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 434–440.
18.
Treisman, A.Focused attention in the perception and retrieval of multidimensional stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 22, 1–11.
19.
Trumbo, D. and Noble, M.Secondary task effects on serial verbal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970; 85, 418–424.
20.
Trumbo, D. and Noble, M.Motor skill. In B. Wolman (Ed) Handbook of general psychology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall. 1973.
21.
Trumbo, D., Noble, M., and Swink, J.Secondary task interference in the performance of tracking tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 73, 232–240.
