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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportD.A.AntonisB.ReynoldsP.
(1972).
On the division of attention: A disproof of the single-channel hypothesis.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
24, 225–235.
2.
AndersonJ.R.
(1982).
Acquisition of cognitive skill.
Psychological Review,
89, 369–406.
3.
BovairS.KierasD.E.
(1991).
Toward a model of acquiring procedures from text. In
BarrR.KamilM.L.MosenthalP.PearsonP.D. (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 206–229).
White Plains, NY: Longman.
4.
DickmanS.J.MeyerD.E.
(1988).
Impulsivity and speed-accuracy tradeoffs in information processing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 274–290.
5.
DuncanJ.
(1977).
Response selection errors in spatial choice reaction tasks.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
29, 415–423.
6.
FittsP.M.SeegerC.M.
(1953).
S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus andresponse codes.
Journal of Experimental Psychology,
46, 199–210.
7.
GottsdankerR.StelmachG.E.
(1971).
The persistence of psychological refractoriness.
Journal of Motor Behavior,
3, 301–312.
8.
GreenwaldA.G.ShulmanH.
(1973).
On doing two things at once II: Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect.
Journal of Experimental Psychology,
101, 70–76.
9.
KierasD.E.MeyerD.E.
(1997).
An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction.
Human-Computer Interaction,
12, 391–438.
10.
KierasD.E.MeyerD.E.BallasJ.A.LauberE.J.
(2000).
Modern computational perspectives on executive mental control: Where to from here? In
MonsellS.DriverJ. (Eds.),
Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 681–712).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
McCannR.S.JohnstonJ.C.
(1992).
Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
18, 471–484.
12.
McLeodP.PoerM.I.
(1984).
Privileged loops from percept to act. In
BoumaH.BouwhuisD.G. (Eds.),
Attention and performance X (pp. 55–66).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
MeyerD.E.KierasD.E.
(1997a).
A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms.
Psychological Review,
104, 3–65.
14.
MeyerD.E.KierasD.E.
(1997b).
A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena.
Psychological Review, 104,
749–791.
15.
MeyerD.E.KierasD.E.
(1999).
Précis to a practical unified theory of cognition and action: Some lessons from EPIC computational models of human multiple-task performance. In
GopherD.KoriatA. (Eds.),
Attention and performance XVII (pp. 17–88).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
PashlerH.
(1984).
Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
10, 358–377.
18.
PashlerH.
(1990).
Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
16, 826–842.
19.
PashlerH.
(1992).
Attentional limitations in doing two tasks at the same time.
Current Directions in Psychological Science,
1, 44–48.
20.
PashlerH.
(1994).
Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory.
Psychological Bulletin,
116, 220–244.
21.
PashlerH.CarrierM.HoffmanJ.
(1993).
Saccadic eye-movements and dual-task interference.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
46A, 51–82.
22.
PashlerH.JohnstonJ.C.
(1989).
Chronometric evidence of central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
41A, 19–45.
23.
SchumacherE.H.LauberE.J.GlassJ.M.ZurbriggenE.L.GmeindlL.KierasD.E.MeyerD.E.
(1999).
Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task-scheduling.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
25, 791–814.
24.
SchumacherE.H.SeymourT.L.GlassJ.M.LauberE.J.KierasD.E.MeyerD.E.
(1997, November). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia.
25.
ShafferL.H.
(1975).
Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In
RabbitP.M.A.DornicS. (Eds.),
Attention and performance V (pp. 157–167).
New York: Academic Press.
26.
Van SelstM.RuthruffE.JohnstonJ.C.
(1999).
Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
25, 1268–1283.
27.
WardJ.H.
(1963).
Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function.
Journal of the American Statistical Association,
58, 236–244.
28.
WelfordA.T.
(1952).
The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high speed performance - A review and a theory.
British Journal of Psychology,
43, 2–19.
