Reading aloud: spelling-sound translation uses central attention

Contrary to the received view that reading aloud reflects processes that are "automatic," recent evidence suggests that some of these processes require a form of attention. This issue was investigated further by examining the effect of a prior presentation of exception words (words whose spelling-sound translation are atypical, such as pint as compared with mint, hint, or lint) and pseudohomophones (nonwords that sound identical to words, such as brane from brain) on reading aloud in the context of the psychological refractory period paradigm. For exception words, the joint effects of repetition and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) yielded an underadditive interaction on the time to read aloud, replicating previous work -- a short SOA between Task 1 and Task 2 increased reaction time (RT) and reduced the magnitude of the repetition effect relative to the long SOA. For pseudohomophones, in contrast, the joint effects of repetition and SOA were additive on RT. These results provide converging evidence for the conclusion that (a) processing up to and including the orthographic input lexicon does not require central attention when reading aloud, whereas (b) translating lexical and sublexical spelling to sound requires the use of central attention.     

Reading aloud and the question of intent

Must readers intend to process a word to activate various levels of representation, or is such processing simply triggered by the presentation of a word (i.e., is it “automatic”)? This issue was addressed via the use of Besner and Care’s Task Set paradigm. On each trial a cue, which indicated which of two tasks to perform appeared either before the target, or at the same time as the target. If subjects can process the target while preparing a task set, then the effect of a manipulated psycholinguistic factor should be absorbed into the time taken to process the cue. Despite robust main effects of SOA and word frequency there was no interaction between these factors when the task was to read aloud. This result implies that target processing is delayed until the subject knows what task to perform, and therefore that intention plays an important role when reading words aloud.     

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.     

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     

Concurrent deployment of visual attention and response selection bottleneck in a dual-task: Electrophysiological and behavioural evidence

Visual attention and response selection are limited in capacity. Here, we investigated whether visual attention requires the same bottleneck mechanism as response selection in a dual-task of the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. The dual-task consisted of an auditory two-choice discrimination Task 1 and a conjunction search Task 2, which were presented at variable temporal intervals (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA). In conjunction search, visual attention is required to select items and to bind their features resulting in a serial search process around the items in the search display (i.e., set size). We measured the reaction time of the visual search task (RT2) and the N2pc, an event-related potential (ERP), which reflects lateralized visual attention processes. If the response selection processes in Task 1 influence the visual attention processes in Task 2, N2pc latency and amplitude would be delayed and attenuated at short SOA compared to long SOA. The results, however, showed that latency and amplitude were independent of SOA, indicating that visual attention was concurrently deployed to response selection. Moreover, the RT2 analysis revealed an underadditive interaction of SOA and set size. We concluded that visual attention does not require the same bottleneck mechanism as response selection in dual-tasks.     

Reading aloud is not automatic: processing capacity is required to generate a phonological code from print

The present experiments tested the claim that phonological recoding occurs "automatically" by assessing whether it uses central attention in the context of the psychological refractory period paradigm. Task 1 was a tone discrimination task and Task 2 was reading aloud. The joint effects of long-lag word repetition priming and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) were underadditive in Experiment 1, suggesting that an early component of lexical processing does not use central attention. In contrast, nonword letter length and grapheme-phoneme complexity yielded additive effects with SOA in Experiments 2, 3, and 4, suggesting that assembled phonology uses central attention. Further, orthographic neighborhood density also yielded additive effects with SOA in Experiments 5, 6, and 7, suggesting that lexical contributions to phonological recoding use central attention. Taken together, the results of these experiments are inconsistent with the widespread claim that phonological codes are assembled and/or addressed automatically. It is suggested that "automaticity" should be replaced by accounts that make more specific claims about how processing unfolds.     

On the role of set when reading aloud: A dissociation between prelexical and lexical processing

Two experiments investigated the role that mental set plays in reading aloud using the task choice procedure developed by Besner and Care [Besner, D., & Care, S. (2003). A paradigm for exploring what the mind does while deciding what it should do. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 311–320]. Subjects were presented with a word, and asked to either read it aloud or decide whether it appeared in upper/lower case. Task information, in the form of a brief auditory cue, appeared 750 ms before the word, or at the same time as the word. Experiment 1 yielded evidence consistent with the claim that at least some pre-lexical processing can be carried out in parallel with decoding the task cue (the 0 SOA condition yielded a smaller contrast effect than the long SOA condition). Experiment 2 provided evidence that such processing is restricted to pre-lexical levels (the word frequency effect was equivalent at the 0 SOA and the long SOA). These data suggest that a task set is a necessary preliminary to lexical processing when reading aloud.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model

The divergent predictions of 2 models of dual-task performance are investigated. The central bottleneck and central capacity sharing models argue that a central stage of information processing is capacity limited, whereas stages before and after are capacity free. The models disagree about the nature of this central capacity limitation. The central bottleneck model claims that central processing acts on only 1 task at a time and, therefore, constitutes a bottleneck that processes tasks serially. The central capacity sharing model postulates that the central stage is a limited-capacity parallel processor that divides resources among to-be-performed tasks. As a result of this difference, in the psychological refractory period paradigm, the central capacity sharing model predicts that lengthening Task 2 precentral processing will improve Task 1 performance at short stimulus onset asynchronies, whereas the central bottleneck model does not. Results of 2 experiments confirm the prediction of the central capacity sharing model.     

Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection

The purpose of this paper was to provide insight into the nature of response selection by reviewing the literature on stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects and the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect individually and jointly. The empirical findings and theoretical explanations of SRC effects that have been studied within a single-task context suggest that there are two response-selection routes—automatic activation and intentional translation. In contrast, all major PRP models reviewed in this paper have treated response selection as a single processing stage. In particular, the response-selection bottleneck (RSB) model assumes that the processing of Task 1 and Task 2 comprises two separate streams and that the PRP effect is due to a bottleneck located at response selection. Yet, considerable evidence from studies of SRC in the PRP paradigm shows that the processing of the two tasks is more interactive than is suggested by the RSB model and by most other models of the PRP effect. The major implication drawn from the studies of SRC effects in the PRP context is that response activation is a distinct process from final response selection. Response activation is based on both long-term and short-term task-defined S-R associations and occurs automatically and in parallel for the two tasks. The final response selection is an intentional act required even for highly compatible and practiced tasks and is restricted to processing one task at a time. Investigations of SRC effects and responseselection variables in dual-task contexts should be conducted more systematically because they provide significant insight into the nature of response-selection mechanisms.     

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.     

A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance

The authors present the central capacity sharing (CCS) model and derive equations describing its behaviors to explain results from dual-task situations. The predictions of the CCS model are contrasted with those of the central bottleneck model. The CCS model predicts all of the hallmark effects of the psychological refractory period (PRP) pardigm: -1 slope of the PRP effect at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), underadditivity of precentral Task 2 manipulations, additivity of central or postcentral Task 2 manipulations with SOA, and carry forward to Task 2 of Task 1 precentral or central manipulations at short SOAs. The CCS model also predicts that Task 1 response times increase with decreasing SOA. The model is a viable alternative to the central bottleneck model.     

Mental rotation, memory scanning, and the central bottleneck

Two reaction-time experiments using the psychological refractory period paradigm examined whether two prominent tasks, i.e., mental rotation and memory scanning, require access to a single-channel mechanism and must therefore be performed sequentially with other operations requiring the same mechanism. On each trial, subjects made speeded responses to a tone (Exp. 1) or a character (Exp. 2, with symbolic SR-compatibility of the character manipulated) as Task 1 and to a letter (for blocks with mental rotation) or a digit (for blocks with memory scanning) as Task 2. The set-size effect was constant across SOAs, suggesting that memory scanning cannot be performed in parallel with response selection of Task 1. The effect of orientation, however, decreased with decreasing SOA. The decrease was even intensified if Task 1 bottleneck processes were prolonged by symbolic SR-compatibility. The exact pattern of underadditivity, however, was not predicted by current theories of dual-task performance. The results contradict a central bottleneck model but are in line with extensions of the model proposed by Meyer and Kieras. Received: 21 January 1998 / Accepted: 15 June 1998     

The locus of temporal preparation effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm

In reaction time (RT) tasks, responses are especially fast when participants can anticipate the onset of an imperative response signal. Although this RT facilitation is commonly attributed to temporal preparation, it is unclear whether this preparation shortens the duration of early or late processes. We used the effect propagation property of the psychological refractory period paradigm to localize the effect of temporal preparation. Manipulation of temporal uncertainty affected the RT of Task 1, regardless of the level of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). Consistent with the prediction of an early locus of temporal preparation, this effect propagated completely to the RT of Task 2 at short SOAs, but propagation diminished virtually to zero at long SOAs.     

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.     

Age differences in overlapping-task performance: evidence for efficient parallel processing in older adults

Two psychological refractory period (PRP) experiments were conducted to examine overlapping processing in younger and older adults. A shape discrimination task (triangle or rectangle) for Task 1 (T1) and a lexical-decision task (word or nonword) for Task 2 (T2) were used. PRP effects, response time for T2 increasing as stimulus onset synchrony (SOA) decreased, were obtained for both age groups. The effect of word frequency on T2 was smaller at the short SOA than at the long SOA, reflecting slack effects, which were larger for older than younger adults in both experiments. These results suggest that older adults can perform lexical access of T2 in parallel with the processing of T1 at least as efficiently as younger adults.     

Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck

The authors investigated the impact of response activation on dual-task performance by presenting a subliminal prime before the stimulus in Task 2 (S2) of a psychological refractory period (PRP) task. Congruence between prime and S2 modulated the reaction times in Task 2 at short stimulus onset asynchrony despite a PRP effect. This Task 2 congruence effect was paralleled by a Task 1 congruence effect and emerged exclusively under conditions of cross talk, whereas it did not occur under dual-task conditions preventing cross talk between tasks. This suggests that response activation operates during the PRP in dual tasks and affects the response times in Task 2 via cross talk between common processing elements at prebottleneck stages but not by directly affecting the postbottleneck stages.