On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible

A. G. Greenwald and H. G. Shulman (see record 1974-10326-001) found that 2 tasks characterized by ideomotor (IM) compatibility could be perfectly timeshared (i.e., performed simultaneously without mutual interference). The 2 tasks were pronouncing "A" or "B" in response to hearing those letter names, and making a manual left or right response to seeing a left- or right-positioned arrow. M.-C. Lien, R. W. Proctor, and P. A. Allen (2002) did not replicate Greenwald and Shulman's result, and concluded that their finding of perfect timesharing of 2 IM-compatible tasks might not be replicable. In the present research, Experiment 1 replicated Greenwald and Shulman's 1973 finding while also supporting the conclusion that Lien et al's nonreplication was due to their not instructing subjects to make 2 responses simultaneously in their timeshared task. Experiment 2 again replicated the perfect timesharing finding, using an alternative control procedure that mixed manual and vocal tasks in the same block. ((c) 2003 APA, all rights reserved)     

Still no evidence for perfect timesharing with two ideomotor-compatible tasks: a reply to Greenwald (2003)

For 30 years, A. G. Greenwald and H. G. Shulman's (1973) psychological refractory period (PRP) study has been cited as evidence for perfect timesharing with ideomotor (IM)-compatible tasks. Recently, M.-C. Lien, R. W. Proctor, and P. A. Allen (2002) failed to replicate these results and concluded that IM compatibility is neither necessary nor sufficient to eliminate the PRP effect. A. G. Greenwald (2003) attributed Lien et al.'s nonreplication to the use of (a) a non-IM-compatible task, (b) varied trial spacing, and/or (c) inappropriate instructions. The authors of the present article argue that the first 2 factors are not critical and that instructions merely affect the criterion for speed versus accuracy. In each of Greenwald's experiments, dual-task costs were evident on response time or error rates. Furthermore, the small dual-task costs in his study are consistent with a bottleneck model. Thus, Greenwald (2003) does not provide evidence that IM-compatible tasks enable perfect timesharing.     

On doing two things at once: IV. Necessary and sufficient conditions: Rejoinder to Lien, Proctor, and Ruthruff (2003)

Four publications have demonstrated perfect timesharing of 1 simultaneous decisions. In all of these, (a). subjects were motivated to respond as quickly as possible, and with 1 exception that involved unusually extensive practice (E. Hazeltine, D. Teague, & R. B. Ivry, 2002, Experiment 4), (b). at least 1 of the 2 tasks was characterized by ideomotor (IM) compatibility, meaning that each task stimulus incorporated a component of the sensory feedback from its required response. Conclusions justified by these reports are that (a). the use of speed-stress instructions is necessary for perfect timesharing of 2 simultaneous decision tasks: (b). when both tasks are IM compatible, perfect timesharing requires little or no practice: (c). extensive practice is needed to achieve perfect timesharing when only 1 of the 2 tasks is IM compatible: and (d). very large amounts of practice can yield perfect timesharing of 2 decision tasks when neither is IM compatible.     

Confirming and disconfirming theories about ideomotor compatibility in dual-task performance: a reply to Greenwald (2005)

Because small dual-task costs with ideomotor-compatible tasks do not necessarily indicate the absence of a bottleneck, M.-C. Lien, R. S. McCann, E. Ruthruff, and R. W. Proctor (2005) considered additional sources of evidence regarding bottleneck bypass. This evidence argued against complete bottleneck bypass and, instead, supported an engage-bottleneck-later model in which early bottleneck substages are bypassed but late substages are not. A. G. Greenwald (2005), however, contended that M.-C. Lien et al. did not use the procedures needed to produce complete bottleneck bypass and that a complete bottleneck bypass hypothesis, combined with additional assumptions, could explain their data. The authors contend that this disagreement stems from Greenwald's focus on confirming predictions of complete bottleneck bypass (small dual-task costs) without disconfirming predictions of bottleneck presence. In particular, Greenwald neglects to consider the possibility that a latent bottleneck limitation could also produce small dual-task costs.     

Preliminary examination of timesharing in United States Air Force ROTC cadets

Previous research has shown that timesharing ability--the ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously--is related to various indices of aircraft pilots' proficiency. Superior timesharing has also been demonstrated by experienced pilots. The present study examined timesharing of United States Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) cadets, who are relatively inexperienced (some with no flying experience). 10 AFROTC cadets (M age = 21.4 yr., SD = 1.0) and 18 noncadets (M age = 19.8 yr., SD = 0.9) were evaluated. Participants performed a tracking task on the Multi-Attribute Task battery in a single-task condition, a dual-task condition, and a tri-task condition. Cadets' tracking performance was superior to that by noncadets in the dual-task and tri-task conditions.     

Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance

Three dual-task experiments were conducted to examine whether the underadditive interaction of the Simon effect and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) on Task 2 performance is due to decay. The experiments tested whether the reverse Simon effect obtained with an incompatible stimulus-response (S-R) mapping would show an overadditive interaction with SOA, as predicted by R. De Jong, C.-C. Liang, and E. Lauber's (1994) dual-process model. Tone or letter identification tasks with vocal or keypress responses were used as Task 1. Task 2 was keypresses to arrow direction (or letter identity in Experiment 1). For all experiments, the normal Simon effect showed an underadditive interaction with SOA, but the reverse Simon effect did not show an overadditive interaction. The results imply that the dual-process model is not applicable to the dual-task context. Multiple correspondence effects across tasks implicate an explanation in terms of automatic S-R translation.     

Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors

According to the extended bottleneck model, dual-task interference does not arise only from a central bottleneck but also from processing limitations at the motor stage. Evidence for this assumption has previously been found only for same-effector tasks but not for different-effector tasks. In order to examine the existence of motor interference with different effectors, we used the psychological refractory period paradigm and employed response sequences of different length in Task 1 (R1 sequence length). Experiment 1 incorporated vocal response sequences in Task 1 and a manual response in Task 2. In Experiment 2, the assignment of the effectors to the two tasks was reversed. In both experiments, the long R1 sequence prolonged reaction time for Task 2 (RT2), and this effect was reduced with decreasing temporal overlap of the two tasks. Thus, the present experiments demonstrate motor interference between different-effector tasks. This interference may be due to on-line programming or to central response monitoring.     

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.     

Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-stress instructions?

It has been argued that the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect is eliminated with two ideomotor compatible tasks when instructions stress fast and simultaneous responding. Three experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. In all experiments, Task 1 required spatially compatible manual responses (left or right) to the direction of an arrow, and Task 2 required saying the name of the auditory letter A or B. In Experiments 1 and 3, the manual responses were keypresses made with the left and right hands, whereas in Experiment 2 they were left-right toggle-switch movements made with the dominant hand. Instructions that stressed response speed reduced reaction time and increased error rate compared to standard instructions to respond fast and accurately, but did not eliminate the PRP effect on Task 2 reaction time. These results imply that, even when response speed is emphasized, ideomotor compatible tasks do not bypass response selection.     

Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice

The authors tested the hypothesis that with adequate practice, people can execute 2 cognitive operations in working memory simultaneously. In Experiment 1, 6 students practiced updating 2 items in working memory through 2 sequences of operations (1 numerical, 1 spatial). In different blocks, imperative stimuli for the 2 sequences of operations were presented either simultaneously or sequentially. Initially, most participants experienced substantial dual-task costs. After 24 sessions of practice, operation latencies for simultaneous presentation were equal to the maximum of times for the 2 operations in the sequential condition, suggesting perfect timesharing. Experiment 2 showed that a reduction of dual-task costs requires practice on the combination of the 2 updating tasks, not just practice on each individual task. Hence, the reduction of dual-task costs cannot be explained by shortening or automatization of individual operations.     

Dual-task performance with ideomotor-compatible tasks: is the central processing bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus?

The present study examined whether the central bottleneck, assumed to be primarily responsible for the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect, is intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus with ideomotor (IM)-compatible tasks. In 4 experiments, factorial combinations of IM- and non-IM-compatible tasks were used for Task 1 and Task 2. All experiments showed substantial PRP effects, with a strong dependency between Task 1 and Task 2 response times. These findings, along with model-based simulations, indicate that the processing bottleneck was not bypassed, even with two IM-compatible tasks. Nevertheless, systematic changes in the PRP and correspondence effects across experiments suggest that IM compatibility shifted the locus of the bottleneck. The findings favor an engage-bottleneck-later hypothesis, whereby parallelism between tasks occurs deeper into the processing stream for IM- than for non-IM-compatible tasks, without the bottleneck being actually eliminated.     

Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification

Four experiments examined whether the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect can be eliminated with ideomotor compatible (IM) but not stimulus-response compatible (SR) tasks, as reported by A. G. Greenwald and H. G. Shulman (1973). Their tasks were used: a left or right movement to a left- or right-pointing arrow (IM) or to the word left or right (SR) for Task 1; saying "A" or "B" (IM) or "1" or "2" (SR) to an auditory A or B for Task 2. The stimulus onset asynchronies were 0, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 1,000 ms in Experiment 1, and only 0, 100, 200, and 1,000 ms in Experiments 2-4. The arrow was in the center of the screen in Experiments 1-3 and to the left or right in Experiment 4. As in Greenwald and Shulman's Experiment 2, the instructions stated that most often the 2 stimuli would be presented simultaneously. A PRP effect was obtained in all conditions, most likely because response-selection decisions are required even for IM tasks.     

Attentional blink for color

Colored letters were presented by means of rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). Two letters (T1 and T2) were targets that required a speeded (T1) or delayed (T2) response. T1 was shown on half of the trials. Two tasks were performed in the experimental conditions. Task 1 required a discrimination between 2 letters (when T1 was shown) or an indication that T1 was absent. In Experiment 1, Task 2 was to detect the presence of a unique color in the RSVP stream (e.g., green in a stream of alternating red and gray). In Experiment 2, Task 2 was to report the color of the first colored letter to appear in the RSVP stream. The lag between T1 and T2 in the RSVP stream was manipulated. Accuracy of color reports in Task 2 was poor at shorter lags and improved as the lag was lengthened in both experiments, demonstrating an attentional blink for chromatic information. Theoretical implications of the results are discussed.     

Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck

A fundamental issue for psychological science concerns the extent to which people can simultaneously perform two perceptual-motor tasks. Some theorists have hypothesized that such dual-task performance is severely and persistently constrained by a central cognitive 'bottleneck,' whereas others have hypothesized that skilled procedural decision making and response selection for two or more tasks can proceed at the same time under adaptive executive control. The three experiments reported here support this latter hypothesis. Their results show that after relatively modest amounts of practice, at least some participants achieve virtually perfect time sharing in the dual-task performance of basic choice reaction tasks. The results also show that observed interference between tasks can be modulated by instructions about differential task priorities and personal preferences for daring (concurrent) or cautious (successive) scheduling of tasks. Given this outcome, future research should investigate exactly when and how such sophisticated skills in dual-task performance are acquired.     

Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm

Bottleneck models of psychological refractory period (PRP) tasks suggest that a Task 1 response should be unaffected by the Task 2 response in the same trial, because selection of the former finishes before selection of the latter begins. Contrary to this conception, the authors found backward response-level crosstalk effects in which Task 2 response force requirements influenced the force-time dynamics of Task 1 responses. Specifically, Task 2 required a hard or soft keypress response. Task 1 responses were harder when the upcoming Task 2 response was to press hard rather than soft, suggesting some activation of Task 2 response parameters before Task 1 processing reached the final ballistic motor output stage. A 3rd experiment using a flankers paradigm showed that this effect did not arise from automatic activation of responses by the stimuli associated with hard and soft responses. This backward response-level crosstalk extends previous findings of backward crosstalk in the PRP paradigm by showing that crosstalk can affect motor output as well as response time and can arise even when the 2 tasks being performed are not semantically related.     

Referential communication abilities of learning-disabled, language-learning-disabled, and normal school-age children

Past research in referential communication has indicated normally developing children show developmental progression in ability to communicate a specific referent to a listener. In one paradigm subjects were given lists of word-pairs in which one member of each pair was designated as the referent. It was shown that communicating about referents found in word-pairs associated in some way was more difficult than communicating about referents in dissimilar word-pairs. The present study extended this methodology to learning-disabled children. Learning-disabled, language-learning-disabled, and normally achieving children were asked to communicate about 30 pictured referents on three different tasks. On Tasks 1 and 2 each subject was asked to give a clue for the referent that would distinguish it from the other picture. Stimuli for Task 1 were 30 pairs of pictures that were related in some way and the stimuli for Task 2 were 30 pairs of unrelated pictures. Task 3 required the subjects to evaluate the adequacy of the examiner's clues for Task 1 stimuli. The disabled subjects were matched to the normally achieving subjects on the basis of receptive vocabulary age. Few differences were noted among the groups' performances on these referential communication tasks. Implications include the importance of vocabulary and concept development to referential communication.     

Valence processing bypassing the response selection bottleneck? Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm

The activation of semantic categories has often been claimed to occur in an attention-free, unconditionally automatic fashion (e.g., Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004). Using a dual-task procedure we tested whether the activation of valence categories is restricted by dual-task specific attentional limitations. For this reason we implemented a modified Eriksen-flanker task as Task 2 in a psychological refractory period paradigm. Participants were to judge the frequency of a tone in Task 1 and the valence of a target word in the presence of irrelevant flanker words in Task 2. Two different flanker categories ensured the activation of semantic categories instead of S-R based response activation. The most important result was an underadditive interaction between flanker congruency and the amount of temporal overlap between tasks that was independent of flanker type. Following the locus-of-slack logic, we interpret these findings as evidence for Task 2 processing parallel to bottleneck-stage processing in Task 1. This extends previous findings by showing that not only number categories (Fischer, Schubert, & Miller, 2007; Oriet, Tombu, & Jolicouer, 2005), but also semantic valence categories can be activated despite dual-task capacity limitations.     

Learning to achieve perfect timesharing: architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, and Ivry (2002)

E. Hazeltine, D. Teague, and R. B. Ivry have presented data that have been interpreted as evidence against a central bottleneck. This article describes simulations of their Experiments 1 and 4 in the ACT-R cognitive architecture, which does possess a central bottleneck in production execution. The simulation model is capable of accounting for the emergence of near-perfect timesharing in Experiment 1 and the detailed data on the distribution of response times from Experiment 4. With practice, the central bottleneck in ACT-R will be reduced to a maximum of 50 ms (1 production cycle) and can often be much less, depending on timing of stages and variability in their times. The authors also show, with a mathematical analysis of E. Hazeltine et al.'s Experiment 2, that the expected dual costs for these kinds of highly practiced tasks will be small in many circumstances, often under 10 ms.     

Can rats acquire an olfactory learning set?

Experimental rats were trained on multiple 2-odor discrimination tasks, whereas controls were given repeated sessions on Task 1 and then were tested on a novel 2-odor task. Experimental rats showed strong positive transfer across problems and approached errorless or near-errorless learning. Control rats maintained near-perfect performance on Task 1 but performed at chance on initial trials when tested with novel odors. Thus, the near-errorless terminal performance of experimental rats was a function their having been trained on multiple problems and was not simply the result of eliminating "disruptive response tendencies" (I. C. Reid & R. G. M. Morris, 1992). Results support the view that when rats are trained on a series of 2-odor discrimination tasks, they acquire a strategy or rule that allows them to solve new problems with few or no errors.     

Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference

Previous studies have paired a visual-manual Task 1 with an auditory-vocal Task 2 to evaluate whether the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect is eliminated with two ideomotor-compatible tasks (for which stimuli resemble the response feedback). The present study varied the number of stimulus-response alternatives for Task 1 in three experiments to determine whether set-size and PRP effects were absent, as would be expected if the tasks bypass limited-capacity response-selection processes. In Experiments 1 and 2, the visual-manual task was used as Task 1, with lever-movement and keypress responses, respectively. In Experiment 3, the auditory-vocal task was used as Task 1 and the visual-manual task as Task 2. A significant lengthening of reaction time for 4 vs. 2 alternatives was found for the visual-manual Task 1 and the Task 2 PRP effect in Experiments 1 and 2, suggesting that the visual-manual task is not ideomotor compatible. Neither effect of set size was significant for the auditory-vocal Task 1 in Experiment 3, but there was still a Task 2 PRP effect. Our results imply that neither version of the visual-manual task is ideomotor compatible; other considerations suggest that the auditory-vocal task may also still require response selection.