结构限制和作业难度对双重作业绩效的影响

通过对不同双重任务的呈现间隔时间和不同任务难度的双重任务的操作研究,探讨了结构限制与资源竞争对双重任务操作绩效的影响。实验结果表明：(1)两种作业呈现的间隔时间对双重任务操作绩效有明显的影响。间隔时间越大,双重任务的作业绩效越好。(2)作业难度对双重任务的操作有明显的影响。作业难度越大,双重任务的操作绩效越差。(3)两个作业呈现的间隔时间不同并不影响作业难度对双重任务操作绩效的作用。本研究的实验结果进一步证实了双重任务操作的三因素假设：结构限制、信息干扰和资源竞争是影响双重任务操作绩效的三个独立的原因。     

结构限制和信息干扰对双重作业绩效的影响

研究通过改变双重任务呈现的间隔时间来探讨结构限制与信息干扰对双重任务操作绩效的影响。实验结果表明：(1)两种作业呈现的间隔时间对双重任务操作绩效有明显的影响。间隔时间越大,双重任务的作业绩效越高。(2)信息干扰对双重任务的操作有明显的影响。信息干扰越大,双重任务的操作绩效越差。(3)两个作业呈现的间隔时间不同并不影响信息干扰对双重任务操作绩效的作用。根据实验结果,该研究提出了三因素假设：结构限制、信息干扰和资源竞争是影响双重任务操作绩效的三个主要因素。     

双作业的信息编码方式对作业绩效的影响

采用单作业和双作业操作,探讨了不同信息编码方式对双作业操作绩效的影响。实验结果证明：若采用相同的信息编码方式,同时操作的两种作业就会产生相互干扰,降低双作业操作绩效;相反,若同时操作的两种作业采用不同信息编码方式将有效地减小双作业操作的相互干扰,使双作业操作的绩效得到提高。     

双作业信息输入通道对作业绩效的影响

采用单作业和双作业操作,探讨了不同信息输入通道对双作业操作绩效的影响。实验结果证明：若采用相同的信息输入通道,同时操作的两种作业就会产生相互干扰,降低操作绩效;相反,若采用不同信息输入通道,双作业之间的相互干扰将减小,作业绩效得到提高。     

不同反应方式对双作业操作信息干扰的影响

本研究采用单作业双作业操作,探讨了不同反应方式对双作业操作信息干扰的影响。实验结果证明;若采用相同的反应方式,同时操作的两种作业就会产生相互干扰,降低作业绩效;相反,若采用不同反应方式将减小双作业操作的相互干扰,提高双作业操作绩效。     

负荷水平和作业信息输入输出形式对视觉追踪操作心理负荷评估敏感性的影响

就负荷水平和信息输入形式,输出形式对视觉追踪作业心理负荷评估指标敏感性的影响进行了实验,获得以下主要结果：（１）主任务绩效具有较好的评估敏感性;（２）作业信息输入形式、输出形式对评估指标敏感性有显著影响。     

短时作业中警戒绩效影响因素的实验研究:兼用信号检测论分析

本文研究了短时（１小时内）作业中警戒绩效的一些影响因素。实验采用ＥＰ７１０警戒仪,研究了短时作业中时间、信号密度（信噪比）以及信号显著性（占空比）对警戒绩效的影响。使用的方法为信号检测论。因变量指标为辨别力指数ｄ’和判断标准Ｂ。结果发现,作业时间和占空比对警戒绩效没有影响,信噪比对辨别力指数ｄ’有影响但对判断标准Ｂ没有影响。结果提示,在短时作业中,信噪比对警戒绩效起显著作用．     

双重作业的颜色编码方式对作业绩效的影响

研究探讨了不同颜色编码方式对双重任务操作绩效的影响。实验结果证明：若采用同类颜色编码方式,同时操作的两种作业就会产生结构限制,降低双重任务操作绩效;相反,若采用异常颜色编码方式,将有效地减少双重任务操作的结构限制,使双重任务的操作绩效得到提高。     

团队作业与团队互动两类共享心智模型的发展特征

共享心智模型指团队成员关于团队作业、策略、团队情境、团队互动等的共同的知识结构,根据内容不同可以分为团队作业模型和团队互动模型两类。该研究通过实验室实验探讨两类共享心智模型的发展特征。132名大学生组成44个3人团队,随机分为团队绩效反馈组和无团队绩效反馈组。采用相似性评定法在团队执行作业前、中、后三次测量两类共享心智模型。结果发现：（1）共享心智模型随团队运作时间增加而发展;（2）团队互动模型形成和发展的难度高于团队作业模型;（3）团队绩效反馈对两类心智模型发展的作用不同,反馈加速了团队作业模型的发展速度,但却是团队互动模型能否得以发展的决定性因素。两类共享心智模型的不同发展特征应归因于两者特异性高低的不同     

选择作业中证伪思维的影响因素

研究了选择作业中证伪思维的影响因素。被试为星海音乐学院本科生592名。实验1、2研究了问题的诊断性对证伪思维的影响;实验3研究了提示证伪样例是否促进证伪;实验4研究了证真证伪相对难度改变是否影响证伪。结果表明：（1）证真和证伪都为诊断性问题,人们倾向于证真;证真为非诊断问题,证伪为诊断性问题,人们倾向于证伪。（2）提示证伪样例,可以促进证伪。（3）证真难度加大,可以促进证伪。结合正反信息转换系统的心理模型理论,可以很好地解释该研究结果。     

Additional effects of a cognitive task on dual-task training to reduce dual-task interference

ObjectiveWhen we perform dual-tasks in daily life, task performance is generally reduced. As these reductions in performance (i.e., dual-task interference) are responsible for various accidents such as falls, the repeated practice of dual-task (i.e., dual-task training) is often implemented to reduce dual-task interference. However, the risk of various accidents increases with longer dual-task training, as dual-task interference cannot be avoided. Therefore, it is important to achieve training goals more rapidly during dual-task training. This study sought to determine whether a combination of dual-task training and cognitive tasks would accelerate training effects.DesignThe experimental design included four groups: 1) cognitive task training group, 2) dual-task training group, 3) cognitive task and dual-task training group, and 4) non training group.MethodWe assessed single- and dual-task performance before and after the 2-week training sessions. We adopted a dual-task involving knee extension and an auditory reaction, and used N-back task as a cognitive task. On the other hand, dual-task training was the same method to assess dual-task performance.ResultDual-task interference was reduced in all groups in both the tasks. However, the number of participants in the cognitive task and dual-task training group who achieved a reduction in dual-task cost was significantly higher than those in other groups.ConclusionThese findings could contribute to the development of an effective method for reducing dual-task interference and resolving issues caused by dual-task interference in daily life.     

Aging and input processing in dual-task situations

The psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm was used to test whether older participants suffer from input interference in dual-task situations. Young (24 years) and older (57 years) adults gave speeded responses to 2 successively presented stimuli. The results showed increased susceptibility of older participants to input interference. Further experiments revealed that this input interference is related to the salience of the 2nd stimulus and that it is specific to older participants. Our findings indicate that parallel processing at the input stages of dual-task performance requires cognitive control. An age-related decline in the control of input processes should be considered as one source of age effects in dual-task performance.     

What causes residual dual-task interference after practice?

Practice can dramatically reduce dual-task interference, but typically does not eliminate interference entirely. Residual interference after practice is especially large with certain non-preferred modality pairings (e.g., auditory–manual and visual–vocal). Does this residual interference imply the existence of a persistent central-processing bottleneck? To address this question, we transferred participants with previous dual-task practice to a psychological refractory period design. Although we observed residual dual-task costs in all four experiments, there was no evidence for a bottleneck, even with non-preferred modality pairings. We conclude that practice can eliminate the bottleneck limitation, but performance is still subject to other sources of interference, such as competition between central codes of the two tasks.     

The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference

Recent debate regarding dual-task performance has focused on whether costs result from limitations in central capacity, and whether central operations can be performed in parallel. While these questions are controversial, the dominant models of dual-task performance share the assumption that central operations are generic--that is, their interactions are independent of stimulus and response modalities. To examine these issues, we conducted a series of dual-task experiments with different input and output modality pairings. One condition combined a visual-manual task with an auditory-vocal task, and the other condition reversed the input-output pairings, combining a visual-vocal task with an auditory-manual task. Input/output modality pairings proved to be a key factor; throughout practice, dual-task costs were generally more than twice as large with visual-vocal/auditory-manual tasks than with the opposite arrangement of modalities (Experiments 1 and 2). These differences could be explained neither by competition for peripheral resources nor by differences in single-task response times (Experiment 3). Moreover, the persistent dual-task costs did not appear to stem from a central bottleneck. Contrary to the dominant models of dual-task performance, we propose that central interference between tasks depends not just on the duration of central operations, nor just strategic adaptation, but also on the content of those operations. Implications for structural and strategic accounts of dual-task interference are discussed.     

Attention Demands in Balance Recovery following Lower Limb Amputation

The attention demands in balance control after damage to the peripheral sensorimotor system were studied in 12 persons with a recent lower limb amputation. The interference of an arithmetic task with two postural tasks of different complexity (quiet standing and active weight shifting) was examined several times during their rehabilitation while the subjects stood on a force platform. Control data were obtained from healthy subjects. For both postural tasks, persons with amputation performed worse than controls. Quiet standing, a relatively simple task, revealed clear dual-task interference only in the amputation group. Evidence was found for a reduction in dual-task interference as rehabilitation progressed. In contrast, voluntary (feedback-controlled) weight shifting, a more complex task, revealed an equal amount of dual-task interference in persons with amputation and in controls, without changes in interference over the period of rehabilitation. The results indicate that attentional mechanisms may be involved in postural control, depending on both the novelty and complexity of the task. Moreover, a reduction in attention demands of quiet standing may reflect a central adaptation of the postural organization to the peripheral sensorimotor impairments caused by lower limb amputation.