Two sources of task prioritization: The interplay of effector-based and task order-based capacity allocation in the PRP paradigm
Please always quote using this URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-235365
- When processing of two tasks overlaps, performance is known to suffer. In the well-established psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, tasks are triggered by two stimuli with a short temporal delay (stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA), thereby allowing control of the degree of task overlap. A decrease of the SOA reliably yields longer RTs of the task associated with the second stimulus (Task 2) while performance in the other task (Task 1) remains largely unaffected. This Task 2-specific SOA effect is usually interpreted in terms of centralWhen processing of two tasks overlaps, performance is known to suffer. In the well-established psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, tasks are triggered by two stimuli with a short temporal delay (stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA), thereby allowing control of the degree of task overlap. A decrease of the SOA reliably yields longer RTs of the task associated with the second stimulus (Task 2) while performance in the other task (Task 1) remains largely unaffected. This Task 2-specific SOA effect is usually interpreted in terms of central capacity limitations. Particularly, it has been assumed that response selection in Task 2 is delayed due to the allocation of less capacity until this process has been completed in Task 1. Recently, another important factor determining task prioritization has been proposed—namely, the particular effector systems associated with tasks. Here, we study both sources of task prioritization simultaneously by systematically combining three different effector systems (pairwise combinations of oculomotor, vocal, and manual responses) in the PRP paradigm. Specifically, we asked whether task order-based task prioritization (SOA effect) is modulated as a function of Task 2 effector system. The results indicate a modulation of SOA effects when the same (oculomotor) Task 1 is combined with a vocal versus a manual Task 2. This is incompatible with the assumption that SOA effects are solely determined by Task 1 response selection duration. Instead, they support the view that dual-task processing bottlenecks are resolved by establishing a capacity allocation scheme fed by multiple input factors, including attentional weights associated with particular effector systems.…
Author: | Mareike A. HoffmannORCiD, Aleks Pieczykolan, Iring Koch, Lynn Huestegge |
---|---|
URN: | urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-235365 |
Document Type: | Journal article |
Faculties: | Fakultät für Humanwissenschaften (Philos., Psycho., Erziehungs- u. Gesell.-Wissensch.) / Institut für Psychologie |
Language: | English |
Parent Title (English): | Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics |
ISSN: | 1943-3921 |
Year of Completion: | 2020 |
Volume: | 82 |
Pagenumber: | 3402–3414 |
Source: | Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics (2020) 82:3402–3414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02071-6 |
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02071-6 |
Dewey Decimal Classification: | 1 Philosophie und Psychologie / 15 Psychologie / 150 Psychologie |
Tag: | cognitive and attentional control; dual task procedures (PRP) Introduction In everyday; dual-task performance |
Release Date: | 2021/06/23 |
Licence (German): | CC BY: Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Namensnennung 4.0 International |