注意力资源限制与双任务的相互干扰机制

采用心理不应期研究范式, 两个反应时实验检测了注意力资源分配的特征以及双任务的相互干扰机制。每次实验中, 要求被试快速、相继对高低音辨别任务(T1)和Stroop任务(T2)作出选择性反应, T1和T2间采用6种不同的时间间隔(SOA), 以系统考察不同SOA条件下两个任务的反应时走势。结果发现：(1) 在重叠的双任务情境中, T1的中枢加工导致在T2上出现显著的PRP效应, T2的中枢反应选择对T1的反应选择和反应执行加工同样产生显著的影响。SOA以及T2的难度与复杂度实质性地影响了T1的反应选择和反应执行加工。(2) 当两个任务同时需要进行中枢反应选择加工时, 一个任务占用更多的注意资源将导致另一任务获得较少的注意资源, 注意资源量的多寡直接决定了该任务的加工效率。(3) 两个任务的加工相互影响、相互制约, 这种制约机制不仅仅存在于中枢反应选择阶段, 在反应执行阶段仍然存在。     

Dissociating sources of dual-task interference using human electrophysiology

In the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, two unmasked targets are presented, each of which requires a speeded response. Response times to the second target (T2) are slowed when T2 is presented shortly after the first target (T1). Electrophysiological studies have previously shown that the P3 event-related potential component is not delayed during T2 response slowing in the PRP paradigm, but that the lateralized readiness potential is delayed, which suggests a bottleneck on response selection operations but not on stimulus identification. Recently, researchers (Arnell & Duncan, 2002; Jolicoeur & Dell'Acqua, 1999) observed T2 response slowing in an encoding-speeded response (ESR) paradigm where T2 followed a masked T1 that required identification but not a speeded response. T2 response slowing in the ESR paradigm is often indistinguishable from that in the PRP paradigm, prompting some researchers to postulate a common processing bottleneck for the two paradigms. With the use of the ESR paradigm, we observed T2 response slowing and, in contrast to the PRP paradigm, we also observed corresponding P3 delays. The results suggest that dissociable bottlenecks underlie the dual-task costs from the two paradigms.     

Cross-modal attentional deficits in processing tactile stimulation

In order to substantiate recent theorization on the possible links between the causes of the attentional blink and the psychological refractory period phenomena (e.g., Jolicoeur, 1999a), four experiments are reported in which two target stimuli, T1 and T2, were presented in different modalities at varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), with each stimulus being associated with a distinct task, Task1 and Task2. In Experiment 1, T1 was a tone, and Task1 was a speeded vocal response based on pitch. T2 was a brief press applied to either of two distal fingerpads, and Task2 was a speeded manual response based on tactile stimulus location. In Experiment 2, the same T1 as that used in Experiment 1 was presented, and in Task1 the subject either made a speeded vocal response based on pitch or ignored T1. T2 was a masked tactile stimulation, and Task2 was an unspeeded manual discrimination of the tactile stimulation location. This Task2 was maintained in Experiments 3 and 4. The auditory T1 was replaced with a white digit embedded in a rapid serial visualization presentation of a stream of black letters, and in Task1 the subject either made an unspeeded decision based on T1 identity or ignored T1. In all the experiments, the results showed an SOA-locked impairment in Task2. As SOA was decreased, reaction times in the speeded Task2 of Experiment 1 increased, and accuracy in the unspeeded Task2 of Experiments 2-4 decreased. The SOA-locked impairment was almost eliminated when T1 could be ignored or was absent. The results are discussed in terms of central processing limitations as the cause of such effects.     

Modulation of the attentional blink by on-line response selection: Evidence from speeded and unspeeded Task1 decisions

Two critical target stimuli (T₁ and T₂) were embedded in a stream of white letters shown on a black background, using a rapid serial visual presentation paradigm (RSVP, 100 msec/item). T₁ was a red H or S; T₂ was an X or a Y. Performance in a two-alternative discrimination on T₂ was impaired when processing of T₁ was required—a result often called an attentional blink (AB). In previous work, the response in Task₁ has been an unspeeded and delayed response at the end of the trial. Three experiments compared performances in Task₂ that depended on whether Task₁ required an unspeeded delayed response or a speeded immediate response. A larger AB was found when a speeded response was required. Furthermore, in the speeded conditions, faster responses in Task₁ were associated with a smaller and shorter AB effect than were slower responses. The results show that manipulations affecting a relatively late stage of processing—response selection—affect the magnitude and duration of the AB phenomenon. A new central inhibition theory is proposed to account for these results. According to this theory, the AB is similar to the psychological refractory period effect and is caused by central postponement of short-term consolidation of T₂.     

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.     

Loci of signal probability effects and of the attentional blink bottleneck

To investigate the locus of signal probability effects and the influence of stimulus quality on this locus, the authors manipulated probability in Task 2 of a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. The effect was additive with stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) when the target was not masked but underadditive with decreasing SOA when the target was masked. Even with masking, however, a range of probabilities had effects additive with SOA. The results suggest loci of stimulus probability before the PRP bottleneck as well as at or after the bottleneck. A second issue addressed was the locus of interference in the attentional blink (AB). The AB was larger when the probability of the first of 2 targets was lower. The results lead to the conclusion that one cause of the AB effect is a locus at least as late as the PRP bottleneck.     

The attentional blink is susceptible to concurrent perceptual processing demands

In a rapid serial visual presentation stream processing of a first target (T1) impairs detection or identification of a second target (T2) that appears within 500 ms after T1. This effect characterizes the so-called attentional blink (AB). To evaluate contemporary information-processing accounts of the AB phenomenon in terms of the underlying processing mechanisms the present study examined the potential influence of Task 1 difficulty on the AB effect. To this end, T1 contrast and T1 response requirements were systematically varied across four experiments. Experiment 1 ruled out a mere sensory basis of the contrast manipulation on T2 performance. When only T2 had to be reported (Experiment 2) an AB effect occurred that was slightly modulated by T1 contrast. When report of both T1 and T2 was required in a standard AB task (Experiment 3), the magnitude of the AB depended to a larger extent on stimulus contrast, and it increased further when speeded T1 choice responses were additionally required (Experiment 4). On the basis of the present impact of Task 1 difficulty on the AB effect we conclude that processing limitations cause the AB phenomenon. We discuss such limitations in terms of perceptual (T1 consolidation) and central (response selection) bottleneck processes.     

The influence of training on the attentional blink and psychological refractory period

A growing body of research suggests that dual-task interference in sensory consolidation (e.g., the attentional blink, AB) and response selection (e.g., the psychological refractory period, PRP) stems from a common central bottleneck of information processing. With regard to response selection, it is well known that training reduces dual-task interference. We tested whether training that is known to be effective for response selection can also reduce dual-task interference in sensory consolidation. Over two experiments, performance on a PRP paradigm (Exp. 1) and on AB paradigms (differing in their stimuli and task demands, Exps. 1 and 2) was examined after participants had completed a relevant training regimen (T1 practice for both paradigms), an irrelevant training regimen (comparable sensorimotor training, not related to T1 for both tasks), a visual-search training regimen (Exp. 2 only), or after participants had been allocated to a no-training control group. Training that had shown to be effective for reducing dual-task interference in response selection was also found to be effective for reducing interference in sensory consolidation. In addition, we found some evidence that training benefits transferred to the sensory consolidation of untrained stimuli. Collectively, these findings show that training benefits can transfer across cognitive operations that draw on the central bottleneck in information processing. These findings have implications for theories of the AB and for the design of cognitive-training regimens that aim to produce transferable training benefits.     

Selection and consolidation of objects and actions

Response selection bottleneck models attribute performance costs under dual-task conditions to the human inability to select more than one response at a time. Consistent with this claim Pashler (1991) found that carrying out a speeded manual choice reaction time (RT) task does not impair the unspeeded report of a cued visual target from a masked display. In contrast, Jolicoeur and DellAcqua (1999, Experiment 2) observed pronounced interference between a speeded manual choice RT task and the unspeeded report of a small number of visually presented letters, a finding they attributed to resource sharing between response selection and stimulus consolidation. We demonstrate that comparable costs are obtained with the same task combination used by Pashler (1991) if only task order is reversed—a manipulation that is likely to increase the necessity of consolidating the target stimulus into working memory. We also found that these costs are not diminished if the location of the target to be reported is cued in advance (reducing demands on spatial focusing) and that they do not vary with the number of target features to be reported. These findings support a consolidation account of costs in dual-task performance.     

注意捕获对注意瞬脱的消弱作用

本研究在经典的注意瞬脱研究范式中变化干扰刺激T2-1或目标刺激T2的颜色特征,探究由新异刺激特征引发的注意捕获对注意瞬脱的影响。结果发现,当改变T2-1或T2的颜色时,这些与任务无关的新异信息可以自下而上地引发注意捕获并减小注意瞬脱。注意瞬脱起因于有限注意资源的分配,资源的分配方式受注意捕获的自动调节。这为解决注意瞬脱到底是有限资源限制还是资源分配提供了新的实证和理论解释。     

Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?

Can people learn to perform two tasks at the same time without interference? To answer this question, the authors trained 6 participants for 36 sessions in a Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) experiment, where Task 1 required a speeded vocal response to an auditory stimulus and Task 2 required a speeded manual response to a visual stimulus. The large PRP effect found initially (353 ms in Session 1) shrank to only about 40 ms over the course of practice, disappearing entirely for 1 of the 6 participants. This reduction in the PRP effect with practice is considerably larger than has been previously reported. The obtained pattern of factor interactions between stimulus onset asynchrony and each of three task difficulty manipulations (Task 1 judgment difficulty, Task 2 stimulus contrast, and Task 2 mapping compatibility) supports a postponement (bottleneck) account of dual-task interference, both before and after practice.     

When underadditivity of factor effects in the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm implies a bottleneck: Evidence from psycholinguistics

The Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm is a dual-task procedure that can be used to examine the resource demands of specific cognitive processes. Inferences about the underlying processes are typically based on performance in the second of two speeded tasks. If the effect of a factor manipulated in Task 2 decreases as the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between tasks decreases (underadditivity), the normative inference is that the effect of this factor occurs prior to a limited-capacity central processing mechanism. In contrast, if the effect of a factor is additive with SOA then the inference is that this indexes a process that either uses a limited-capacity central processing mechanism or occurs after some process that uses this mechanism. A heretofore unidentified exception to this logic arises when Task 2 involves two separate processes that operate in parallel, but compete. Interference with one process in Task 2 because of work on Task 1 will eliminate or reduce competition within Task 2 and is hence manifest as an underadditive interaction with decreasing SOA. This is illustrated here by reference to a PRP experiment in which the ubiquitous effect of spelling-to-sound regularity on reading aloud time is eliminated at a short SOA and by consideration of three converging lines of investigation in the PRP paradigm when Task 2 involves reading aloud.     

Stimulus and response priming in rapid serial visual presentation: evidence for a dissociation

Two experiments investigated the capacity demands of stimulus and response priming in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task. Three targets were presented in a stream of visual symbols: The first two (T1 and T2) required an unspeeded manual response at the end of the trial, but the third (T3) called for an immediate,speeded manual response. T2 and T3 either were identical (fully compatible), required the same response (response compatible), or required different responses (incompatible). Priming in the fully compatible condition depended strongly on successful identification of the priming stimulus, whereas response-based priming was observed regardless of whether the prime could be reported or not. These findings suggest that stimulus coding and response coding are automatic processes, unaffected by attentional capacity constraints, followed by capacity-limited stimulus consolidation and response selection. Moreover, even though response codes are activated automatically upon stimulus processing, both types of codes act, and affect behavior, independently.     

Online response-selection and the attentional blink: Multiple-processing channels

Robust interference often arises when multiple targets (T1 and T2) are discriminated in rapid succession (the attentional blink or AB). The AB has been observed for a wide range of stimuli, and is often thought to reflect a central capacity limitation in working memory consolidation, attentional engagement, and/or online response selection. However, recent evidence challenges the existence of unitary bottleneck during postperceptual processing. Awh et al. (2004 Awh, E., Serences, J., Laurey, P., Dhaliwal, H., van der Jagt, T. and Dassonville, P. 2004. Evidence against a central bottleneck during the attentional blink: Multiple channels for configural and featural processing. Cognitive Psychology, 48(1): 95–126.  [Google Scholar]) found no AB interference when a digit target preceded a face target, presumably because these stimuli could be processed by means of separable processing channels. Using a modified AB procedure, recent studies have also demonstrated that speeded response selection of T1 leads to an AB effect for T2 identification, supporting the conclusion that response selection induces the same processing limitations that typically gives rise to an AB. The present research tests this hypothesis by examining the effects of response selection on the identification of faces. Although we replicated previous demonstrations that online response selection of a digit disrupts the identification of T2 letters, we found no interference in the identification of T2 faces. However, robust AB interference was once again observed when a speeded response to a T1 face was required, confirming that faces are not simply immune to central interference. These results dispute the existence of a unitary postperceptual capacity limitation that gives rise to the AB.     

The control of stimulus-driven saccades is subject not to central, but to visual attention limitations

In three experiments, we investigated whether the control of reflexive saccades is subject to central attention limitations. In a dual-task procedure, Task 1 required either unspeeded reporting or ignoring of briefly presented masked stimuli, whereas Task 2 required a speeded saccade toward a visual target. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the two tasks was varied. In Experiments 1 and 2, the Task 1 stimulus was one or three letters, and we asked how saccade target selection is influenced by the number of items. We found (1) longer saccade latencies at short than at long SOAs in the report condition, (2) a substantially larger latency increase for three letters than for one letter, and (3) a latency difference between SOAs in the ignore condition. Broadly, these results match the central interference theory. However, in Experiment 3, an auditory stimulus was used as the Task 1 stimulus, to test whether the interference effects in Experiments 1 and 2 were due to visual instead of central interference. Although there was a small saccade latency increase from short to long SOAs, this difference did not increase from the ignore to the report condition. To explain visual interference effects between letter encoding and stimulus-driven saccade control, we propose an extended theory of visual attention.     

双任务情境下心理旋转的并行加工机制

采用心理不应期研究范式,三个反应时实验检测了心理旋转任务和其他认知操作任务能否并行加工的问题。在每个实验中要求被试快速、系列地完成对高低音的辨别任务(T1)和不同旋转角度的正反像辨别任务(T2),T1和T2呈现的时间间隔运用变化的SOA。结果发现：(1)T1的反应选择对T2的反应选择产生了很大的影响,在T2上PRP效应显著。心理旋转的操作成绩随着SOA的缩短而降低。(2)在T1上同样存在随着SOA缩短,反应时增加,正确率下降的趋势。T2的反应选择对T1的反应选择同样产生了显著的影响。(3)T2的反应选择对T1的中枢加工产生了相应的影响,表明当T1的反应选择占据中枢瓶颈时,心理旋转任务和其他认知操作任务在中枢瓶颈中并行得到了有效的加工     

Cued shifts of attention and memory encoding in partial report: A dual-task approach

This study explores how cued shifts of visual attention and rapid encoding of visual information relate to limited-capacity processing mechanisms. Three experiments were conducted placing a partial-report task within a dual-task paradigm. Experiments 1 and 2 involved a simple speeded visual discrimination (Task 1) and then an unspeeded partial-report task (Task 2). Generally, Task 2 accuracy declined as the temporal overlap between the two tasks increased. In addition, in Experiment 1, varying the number of items in the partial-report display had an effect on performance regardless of overlap. In contrast, in Experiment 2, varying the type of probe had an effect only at long task overlap. The generality of the interference effect was tested in Experiment 3 using an auditory discrimination as Task 1. Again, Task 2 accuracy declined as the temporal overlap between the two tasks increased. In all cases, the observed interference had the properties of a processing bottleneck. It is argued that encoding information into memory and response selection for the first task both require general-purpose processing. The results are discussed in terms of the functional relationship between attention and memory.     

The influence of temporal selection on spatial selection and distractor interference: an attentional blink study.

Both spatial and temporal selection require focused attention. The authors examine how temporal attention affects spatial selection. In a dual-task rapid serial visual presentation paradigm, temporal selection of a target (T1) impairs processing of a second target (T2) that follows T1 within 500 ms. This process is the attentional blink (AB). To test the effects of withdrawing temporal attention, the authors measured concurrent distractor interference on T2 when the distractors were presented during and outside of the AB. Perceptual interference was manipulated by the similarity in color between T2 and concurrent distractors, and response interference was manipulated by the flanker congruency task. Results showed that perceptual interference was larger during the AB. Response interference also increased during the AB, but only when perceptual interference was high. The authors conclude that temporal selection and spatial selection rely on a common attentional process.     

Cross-modal attentional deficits in processing tactile stimulation

In order to substantiate recent theorization on the possible links between the causes of the attentional blink and the psychological refractory period phenomena (e.g., Jolicoeur, 1999a), four experiments are reported in which two target stimuli, T₁ and T₂, were presented in different modalities at varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), with each stimulus being associated with a distinct task, Task₁ and Task₂. In Experiment 1, T₁ was a tone, and Task₁ was a speeded vocal response based on pitch. T₂ was a brief press applied to either of two distal fingerpads, and Task₂ was a speeded manual response based on tactile stimulus location. In Experiment 2, the same T₁ as that used in Experiment 1 was presented, and in Task₁ the subject either made a speeded vocal response based on pitch or ignored T₁. T₂ was a masked tactile stimulation, and Task₂ was an unspeeded manual discrimination of the tactile stimulation location. This Task₂ was maintained in Experiments 3 and 4. The auditory T₁ was replaced with a white digit embedded in a rapid serial visualization presentation of a stream of black letters, and in Task₁ the subject either made an unspeeded decision based on T₁ identity or ignored T₁. In all the experiments, the results showed an SOA-locked impairment in Task₂. As SOA was decreased, reaction times in the speeded Task₂ of Experiment 1 increased, and accuracy in the unspeeded Task₂ of Experiments 2–4 decreased. The SOA-locked impairment was almost eliminated when T₁ could be ignored or was absent. The results are discussed in terms of central processing limitations as the cause of such effects.     

Evidence for a response preparation bottleneck during dual-task performance: Effect of a startling acoustic stimulus on the psychological refractory period

The present study was designed to investigate the mechanism associated with dual-task interference in a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. We used a simple reaction time paradigm consisting of a vocal response (R1) and key-lift task (R2) with a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between 100 ms and 1500 ms. On selected trials we implemented a startling acoustic stimulus concurrent with the second stimulus to determine if we could involuntarily trigger the second response. Our results indicated that the PRP delay in the second response was present for both control and startle trials at short SOAs, suggesting the second response was not prepared in advance. These results support a response preparation bottleneck and can be explained via a neural activation model of preparation. In addition, we found that the reflexive startle activation was reduced in the dual-task condition for all SOAs, a result we attribute to prepulse inhibition associated with dual-task processing.