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。     

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。     

结果冲突与作业难度对双重作业绩效的影响

运用单作业和双作业操作探讨结果冲突与作业难度对双重作业绩效的影响。结果表明：（１）信息干扰对双作业操作有着明显的影响。信息干扰越大,结果冲突效应越大,双作业操作绩效越差。（２）作业难度对双作业绩效有明显影响。作业难度越大,双作业操作绩效越差。根据实验结果,本研究提出了双因素假设：信息干扰和资源竞争是影响双作业操作绩效的两个主要因素。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

作业中断对任务绩效的影响及心理疲劳的调节作用

作业中断会对中断后行为绩效产生影响,探讨不同疲劳状态下中断对作业绩效影响的认知机制将有助于完善和发展中断的认知理论。本研究采用事件相关电位(ERP),通过在不同心理疲劳状态下执行数学题任务中断、暂停中断和不中断的空间2-back任务,结合行为数据和ERPs结果,分析作业中断对任务绩效的影响以及心理疲劳在其中的调节作用。实验结果发现,中断后诱发的P200和P300振幅显著提高,作业中断使得主任务的注意力资源下降,任务中断的无关信息干扰了主任务工作记忆,而疲劳状态则进一步加剧了中断对注意资源、工作记忆及行为绩效的负面效应。本研究在揭示作业中断认知过程及疲劳对其影响机理的同时,也支持了中断的目标记忆模型。     

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。     

视-听跨通道汉语词汇信息加工中的抑制机制

采用选择性再认的方法考察在汉语词汇加工过程中 ,视 -听跨通道信息与视觉单通道信息加工过程中的抑制机制。结果表明 :对于视觉词汇的总体再认“否”反应 ,单通道干扰条件下的成绩优于跨通道干扰条件下的成绩。在视觉词汇加工过程中 ,对外在干扰材料的抑制效率不受输入干扰刺激的通道的影响。抑制效率受干扰材料语义关系性的影响 ,与目标材料属于同一语义范畴的比异范畴的干扰材料更难以被抑制。     

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．     

Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck

The present experiment examined the effects of input/output modality pairings on dual-task performance using the psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure. Four groups of participants performed two tasks composed of the same sets of inputs (visual and auditory) and the same sets of outputs (manual and vocal), but with different input/output modality pairings. Whereas modality pairings had only small effects on single-task reaction times, they had large effects on dual-task reaction times. The modality pairing effect cannot stem from differences in the difficulty of stimulus classification or response execution, because these task demands were the same across groups. The effect also does not appear to result from changes in stimulus-response compatibility. The present findings suggest dual-task interference arises not only from postponement of central operations (due to a central bottleneck), but also from a slowing of central operations whose magnitude is sensitive to the input/output modality pairings.     

Division of attention: The single-channel hypothesis revisited

Two experiments are reported in which subjects performed two forced-paced serial reaction time tasks separately and together at their maximum sustainable rates of information processing. Experiment 1 investigated the effects on the relationship between single- and dual-task performance of using tasks with the same or different input and output modality characteristics; an additional condition tested the effects on this relationship of using tasks with higher S-R compatibility. Experiment 2 investigated the effects on the relationship between single- and dual-task performance of varying information load (number of S-R alternatives). No significant differences were found in subjects' capacities to process information in single- and dual-task conditions. This finding was unaffected by: (a) the absolute information levels of the tasks, (b) whether inputs and/or outputs involved the same or different modalities, or (c) the level of S-R compatibility. The data from both experiments provide strong support for the single-channel hypothesis.     

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.     

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.     

Interference effects of stimulus–response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness

Recent evidence suggests that the degree of interference in dual-task situations depends crucially on the pairings of input- and output modalities of the two component tasks with increased dual-task costs for modality incompatible (i.e., visual–vocal and auditory–manual) compared to modality compatible (i.e., visual–manual and auditory–vocal) dual tasks. These effects of modality pairings in dual tasks have been related to the overlap of non-preferred processing pathways in modality incompatible tasks. Until now, modality compatibility has not yet been related to other sources of interference in a dual-task context, such as stimulus–response (S–R) compatibility or crosstalk. In the present study, we conducted two experiments using the paradigm of the psychological refractory period (PRP) to test the effects of S–R compatibility and crosstalk on the effects of modality compatibility in temporally overlapping task situations. Experiment 1 revealed an overadditive interaction between stimulus onset asynchrony and modality compatibility for tasks with S–R compatible mappings, indicating that modality compatibility effects are present in different task situations, even when S–R mappings are otherwise compatible. In Experiment 2, we aimed at pinpointing the boundaries of the effects of modality compatibility in dual-task situations. We showed that additional sources of dual-task interference in a modality compatible dual task could overwrite the pronounced PRP effect previously shown for modality incompatible tasks. Taken together, these data provide new evidence that the specific types of stimulus–response modality pairings are an additional factor that might interact with other sources of interference in dual-task situations.     

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.     

Arithmetic operation and working memory: differential suppression in dual tasks

The relationship between arithmetic function and working memory was examined using a dual-task paradigm for either phonological or visuo-spatial suppression. Simultaneous phonological rehearsal significantly delayed the performance of multiplication but not subtraction, whereas holding an image in the mind delayed subtraction but not multiplication. This result indicates that arithmetic function is related to working memory in a subsystem-specific manner: multiplication is more closely linked to phonological loop and subtraction to visuo-spatial sketchpad. Whereas this is not compatible with the notion that arithmetic is done on a unitary, amodal representation of numbers, it provides support for the triple-code and/or the modular processing models on human numerical cognition in which number representations are specific for input/output modality and arithmetic types.