Dual route for subtask order control: Evidence from the psychological refractory paradigm

A change in subtask order in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm increases the effect of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) on the second response. We used a paradigm with cued, randomly determined subtask order to test the hypothesis that this SOA by order switch overadditivity reflects order control, via “copying” stimulus order. In Experiments 1a and 1b, overadditivity was evident only with insufficient opportunity for cue-based order control. In Experiment 2, overadditivity was decreased by using the same set of stimuli in the two subtasks, presumably by removing the opportunity to rely on stimulus order. In Experiment 3, removing the order cue increased the overadditivity, presumably because control was based solely upon copying stimulus order. The results indicate interactive top-down and bottom-up order control. Implications to theories of the PRP paradigm are discussed.     

Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm

The authors examined the role of online order control in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. In the first 2 experiments, participants switched between color-letter and letter-color orders so that subtask order was isolated as the only element being switched. The results indicated that order switching impaired the 2 PRP responses and modulated the PRP effect. Importantly, these effects were reduced by advance preparation, demonstrating that order representation was activated before the subtasks themselves. Preparation for subtask order did not reflect preparation for hand order, as shown in Experiment 3. In addition, there was no evidence that subtask order information dissipated between trials. The relevance of the results to theories of the PRP paradigm and task switching is discussed.     

Determinants of central processing order in psychological refractory period paradigms: central arrival times, detection times, or preparation?

Three psychological refractory period (PRP) experiments were conducted to assess the effect of central arrival times at the bottleneck on task order scheduling. In Experiment 1, a visual first task (plus-minus symbol discrimination) was combined with an auditory second task (left-right tone judgement) in a standard PRP paradigm with constant task order. In Experiment 2, the order of the tasks varied unpredictably. In Experiment 3, visual-auditory dual-task trials were randomly mixed with single-task trials. To dissociate central arrival times from stimulus detection times, the perceptual stage of the visual task was extended using stimulus degradation. Most importantly, no evidence for a first-come, first-served principle at the central bottleneck was found with the employed paradigms. Instead, the results indicated that preparation (Experiment 1) and the detection times of the stimuli (Experiments 2 and 3) were the main determinants of central processing order in the present study. In the light of previous research, the results indicate that central processing order can be influenced by various factors. The interplay between these factors seems to depend highly on the conditions and requirements of the employed experimental paradigm.     

A neuropsychological assessment of dual-task costs in closed-head injury patients using Cohen’s effect size estimation method

A test of whether patients suffering from a severe closed-head injury (CHI) were affected by disproportionate dual-task costs compared to those of healthy control participants was carried out through a direct comparison of CHI effects on dual-task (psychological refractory period, or PRP) performance and on single-task performance. In the dual-task condition of the present experiment, independent choice-responses were required to two sequential stimuli presented at a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). A significant delay of the reaction time (RT) to the second stimulus was reported by both CHI patients and controls at short (SOA) compared to long SOA, i.e., a PRP effect. The PRP effect was more pronounced for CHI patients than controls. In the single-task condition, a single choice-response was required to a stimulus presented in isolation. The RT produced by CHI patients in the single-task paradigm was longer than the RT produced by controls. CHI effects on dual-task performance and on single-task performance were compared following (1) their transformation into Cohen’s ds, and (2) the application of a correction algorithm taking into account the different reliability of single-task and dual-task measures. The analysis of Cohen’s ds revealed that CHI effects on performance were, if anything, smaller in the dual-task condition than in the single-task condition. The results imply that CHI patient’s slower responding in single- and dual-task performance reflects a single common cause—slowing of the central processing.     

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 picture-word interference effect is not a Stroop effect

A psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm was used to isolate the locus of the picture-word interference effect along the chain of processes subtended in name production. Two stimuli were presented sequentially on each trial, separated by a varying stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). The first stimulus, SI, was a tone that required a manual response. The second stimulus, S2, was a picture-word stimulus associated with picture naming. The distractor word was conceptually related to the picture on half of the trials, and unrelated in the other trials. A picture-word interference effect was found at long SOA, but not at short SOA. Such underadditive interaction between SOA and semantic relatedness suggests strongly that the locus of the picture-word interference effect is functionally earlier than the PRP effect locus. The results are discussed in relation to models of word production suggesting the involvement of central mechanisms in the selection of lexical output.     

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.     

Bimanual response grouping in dual-task paradigms

In three experiments we measured response time (RT) and peak force (PF) to investigate the grouping of left- and right-hand key press responses in a dual-task paradigm involving two independent go/no-go tasks. Within each task, a go stimulus within one of two modalities (i.e., visual versus auditory) required a response by one hand. In Experiment 1 with simultaneous go stimuli in the two tasks, responses appeared to be grouped in approximately 75–80% of trials, compared with nearly 100% grouping in a single-task condition requiring bimanual responses to the onset of any stimulus in either modality. In Experiment 2 with stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 0–400 ms between the two go stimuli, response grouping clearly declined as SOA increased, although some grouping was still evident even at the longest SOA. The same pattern was observed in Experiment 3 with the same range of SOAs but unpredictable stimulus order, suggesting that grouping is not strongly dependent on prior knowledge of the likely response order. These results emphasize the pervasiveness of response grouping in bimanual dual-task RT paradigms and provide useful clues as to its nature.     

Bimanual response grouping in dual-task paradigms

In three experiments we measured response time (RT) and peak force (PF) to investigate the grouping of left- and right-hand key press responses in a dual-task paradigm involving two independent go/no-go tasks. Within each task, a go stimulus within one of two modalities (i.e., visual versus auditory) required a response by one hand. In Experiment 1 with simultaneous go stimuli in the two tasks, responses appeared to be grouped in approximately 75-80% of trials, compared with nearly 100% grouping in a single-task condition requiring bimanual responses to the onset of any stimulus in either modality. In Experiment 2 with stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 0-400 ms between the two go stimuli, response grouping clearly declined as SOA increased, although some grouping was still evident even at the longest SOA. The same pattern was observed in Experiment 3 with the same range of SOAs but unpredictable stimulus order, suggesting that grouping is not strongly dependent on prior knowledge of the likely response order. These results emphasize the pervasiveness of response grouping in bimanual dual-task RT paradigms and provide useful clues as to its nature.     

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.     

The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA

A common finding in task-switching studies is switch preparation (commonly known as the preparation effect), in which a longer interval between task cue and trial stimulus (i.e., a longer stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA) reduces the cost of switching to a different task. Three experiments link switch preparation to within-subjects manipulations of SOA. In Experiment 1, SOA was randomized within subjects, producing switch preparation that was more pronounced when the SOA switched from the previous trial than when the SOA repeated. In Experiment 2, SOA was blocked within subjects, producing switch preparation but not on the first block of trials. In Experiment 3, SOA was manipulated between subjects with sufficient statistical power to detect switch preparation, but the effect was absent. The results favor an encoding view of cognitive control, but show that any putative switching mechanism reacts lazily when exposed to only one SOA.     

The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm

In target detection tasks, responses are faster when displays have 2 targets (redundant-targets effect; RTE) and slower when they have no targets (nontargets effect; NTE) relative to displays with a single target. The psychological refractory period paradigm was used to localize these effects. In Experiment 1, participants classified tones as high or low and then classified letters as targets or nontargets after a short or long stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). The magnitudes of the RTE and NTE did not depend on SOA. In Experiment 2, the order of the tasks was reversed, and at short SOAs the RTE and NTE had similar magnitudes for both tone discrimination and target detection responses. These findings suggest that the RTE and NTE arise during response selection. Interactive effects of tone pitch with the number and type of target features were also observed, and these were tentatively interpreted as synesthetic effects.     

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。     

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     

A PRP-study to determine the locus of target priming effects

Visual stimuli that are made invisible by a following mask can nonetheless affect motor responses. To localize the origin of these target priming effects we used the psychological refractory period paradigm. Participants classified tones as high or low, and responded to the position of a visual target that was preceded by a prime. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between both tasks varied. In Experiment 1 the tone task was followed by the position task and SOA dependent target priming effects were observed. When the visual position task preceded the tone task in Experiment 2, with short SOA the priming effect propagated entirely to the tone task yielding faster responses to tones on visually congruent trials and delayed responses to tones on visually incongruent trials. Together, results suggest that target priming effects arise from processing before and at the level of the central bottleneck such as sensory analysis and response selection.     

Location specificity in response selection processes for visual stimuli

We used the psychological refractory period paradigm, in which participants respond to two successive tasks (T1 and T2). We created in T2 spatial and color Simon effects, known to be caused by response selection processes. Previous studies in which the spatial Simon effect was manipulated in T2 showed that this effect was underadditive, with stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the targets for T1 and T2. In Experiment 1, we replicated these results with two versions of the spatial Simon effect. In contrast, in Experiment 2 we manipulated two versions of a color Simon effect, revealing an additive relation between the color Simon effect and SOA. These results suggest that the underadditivity obtained with the spatial Simon effect is due to its spatial nature, and that space may play a unique role in response selection processes.     

Preparation for horizontal or vertical dimensions affects the right-left prevalence effect

When stimulus and response simultaneously vary in both horizontal and vertical dimensions, the stimulus-response compatibility effect is often larger for the horizontal dimension. We investigated the role of preparation for each dimension in this right-left prevalence. In Experiment 1, tasks based on horizontal and vertical dimensions were mixed in random order, and the relevant dimension in each trial was cued with a variable cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). A right-left prevalence effect was observed only when participants prepared for the upcoming task. Experiment 2 replicated the absence of the prevalence effect for the simultaneous presentation of cue and target using a fixed SOA of 0 msec. In Experiment 3, the right-left prevalence emerged with a 0-msec SOA when participants prepared for e achdimension basedon its frequency. These resultssuggest that participants' internal set can be greater for the horizontal dimension, leading to the right-left prevalence effect.     

跨通道语义启动对视觉注意的影响

采用生活中的真实客体,考察了跨通道语义相关性对视觉注意的影响以及跨通道促进的时程。结合启动范式和点探测范式,实验1发现在听觉启动600ms后,被试对高相关视觉刺激的反应比对低相关刺激的反应更快,而在视觉启动下没有发现启动效应。实验2发现在启动刺激呈现900ms后跨通道启动效应消失。研究证明了基于先前经验的视、听语义相关能够促进视觉的选择性注意。     

Viewer perspective affects central bottleneck requirements in spatial translation tasks

A psychological refractory period (PRP) approach and the locus of slack logic were applied to examine the novel question of whether spatial translation processes can begin before the central bottleneck when effector or noneffector stimuli are processed from an egocentric (viewer-centered) perspective. In single tasks, trials requiring spatial translations were considerably slower than trials without translations (Experiment 1). Dual tasks consisted of tone discriminations (Task 1) and spatial translations (Task 2) using PRP methods with different manipulations on perceptual and response demands. When a viewer-centered perspective was used, the effect of spatial translation was reduced at short compared with long stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) when the potential for code overlap between tasks was removed (Experiments 2, 3, and 4); this finding supports the view that translation processes can begin before the central bottleneck. When an allocentric (non-viewer-centered) perspective was used (Experiment 5), the slowing associated with spatial translation was additive with SOA, suggesting that the processes of spatial translation cannot begin before the bottleneck. These findings highlight the importance of viewer perspective on central bottleneck requirements. Findings are further discussed in relation to the dorsal-ventral model of action and perception.     

All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon

The goal of the present experiment was to test the predictions of Central Bottleneck and Central Capacity Sharing models. According to the Central Bottleneck model, dual task interference, as observed in the PRP paradigm, is caused by an all-or-none bottleneck in information processing. The Central Capacity Sharing model postulates that dual task interference is caused by a capacity limited process that can allocate capacity in a graded fashion. The Central Bottleneck model predicts no change in RT1 with decreasing SOA, whereas the Central Capacity Sharing model predicts that RT1 will increase with decreasing SOA and that the slope of the RT1 SOA effect will depend upon the difficulty of task 2. Subjects were required to perform a tone pitch judgement and shape-matching task in rapid succession. Task order was randomized and the SOA between the first and second stimulus varied from 50 to 1250 ms. Results from this experiment favour the Central Capacity Sharing model. The results were then run through simulations of both the Central Bottleneck and Central Capacity Sharing models. Results from the simulations also favoured the Central Capacity Sharing model. As the difficulty of the second task increased, more capacity was allocated to it, confirming the prediction that as task 2 difficulty increases, the RT1 SOA slope increases. The proportion of capacity allocated to the first task varied from.78 to.91 indicating that capacity can be allocated in a graded fashion.