Literature DB >> 29116613

How are cognitive and physical difficulty compared?

Cory Adam Potts1, Stefan Pastel2, David A Rosenbaum3,4.   

Abstract

Tasks that require less physical effort are generally preferred over more physically demanding alternatives. Similarly, tasks that require less mental effort are generally preferred over more mentally demanding alternatives. But what happens when one must choose between tasks that entail different kinds of effort, one mainly physical (e.g., carrying buckets) and the other mainly mental (e.g., counting)? We asked participants to choose between a bucket-carrying task and a counting task. Our participants were less likely to choose the bucket task when it required a long reach rather than a short reach, and our participants were also less likely to choose the bucket task the smaller the final count value. We tested the hypothesis that subjective task durations provided a common currency for comparing the difficulties of the two kinds of tasks. We found that this hypothesis provided a better account of the task choice data than did an account that relied on objective task durations. Our study opens the door to a new problem in the study of attention, perception, and psychophysics-judging the difficulty of different kinds of tasks. The approach we took to this problem, which relies on two-alternative forced choice along with modeling the basis for the choice, may prove useful in future investigations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Counting; Decision-making; Effort; Motor control; Perception and action; Reaching; Walking

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29116613     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-017-1434-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  19 in total

Review 1.  Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition.

Authors:  D H Ballard; M M Hayhoe; P K Pook; R P Rao
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 12.579

2.  The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.

Authors:  P M FITTS
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1954-06

3.  Toward a Metacognitive Account of Cognitive Offloading.

Authors:  Timothy L Dunn; Evan F Risko
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-08-26

Review 4.  Learned industriousness.

Authors:  R Eisenberger
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  The soft constraints hypothesis: a rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior.

Authors:  Wayne D Gray; Chris R Sims; Wai-Tat Fu; Michael J Schoelles
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 6.  Grounded cognition.

Authors:  Lawrence W Barsalou
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 24.137

Review 7.  Time perception, attention, and memory: a selective review.

Authors:  Richard A Block; Ronald P Gruber
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2013-12-21

8.  Memory representations in natural tasks.

Authors:  D H Ballard; M M Hayhoe; J B Pelz
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  Metacognitive evaluation in the avoidance of demand.

Authors:  Timothy L Dunn; David J C Lutes; Evan F Risko
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance.

Authors:  Robert Kurzban; Angela Duckworth; Joseph W Kable; Justus Myers
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 12.579

View more
  3 in total

1.  Does task sustainability provide a unified measure of subjective task difficulty?

Authors:  David A Rosenbaum; Bill V Bui
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-12

2.  Judgements of effort as a function of post-trial versus post-task elicitation.

Authors:  Michelle Ashburner; Evan F Risko
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 2.143

3.  Towards a common code for difficulty: Navigating a narrow gap is like memorizing an extra digit.

Authors:  Iman Feghhi; John M Franchak; David A Rosenbaum
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 2.199

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.