Literature DB >> 29971643

The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection.

Stuart T Klapp1, Dana Maslovat2, Richard J Jagacinski3.   

Abstract

The Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) effect is a delay in responding that is assumed to be caused by a bottleneck that prevents preparation of a second action until preparation of the previous action has been completed. The bottleneck is usually attributed to a limitation that prevents concurrent selection of two responses. However, evidence reviewed here challenges this selection interpretation. We propose instead that the bottleneck is due to a process that programs the timing of response initiation, and which must be completed immediately prior to responding. This hypothesis is based on two conclusions from recent developments in research, which includes findings from paradigms that do not involve the PRP. The first conclusion is from studies involving the startle response and single-task simple (precued) reaction time; these studies indicate that programming the timing of response onsets is needed to enable response initiation. This programing takes longer for more complicated timing, and must be delayed until just prior to responding. The second conclusion is from studies of concurrent rhythmic movements demonstrating that the representation of timing is restricted to one temporal frame unless very rapid performance enables parallel timing. These findings reveal limitations that can combine to produce the PRP bottleneck. This interpretation clarifies otherwise puzzling aspects of the PRP effect and indicates that a fundamental restriction concerning response timing may underlie both limitations and the PRP effect that they produce. This restriction might arise because timing is controlled by subcortical neural structures with limited working memory.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Divided attention; Multitasking; Psychological Refractory Period; Response initiation; Response timing

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 29971643     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1498-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  77 in total

1.  The fast and the slow of skilled bimanual rhythm production: parallel versus integrated timing.

Authors:  R T Krampe; R Kliegl; U Mayr; R Engbert; D Vorberg
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: graded capacity sharing or central postponement?

Authors:  Eric Ruthruff; Harold E Pashler; Eliot Hazeltine
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2003-07

3.  On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible.

Authors:  Anthony G Greenwald
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Confirming and disconfirming theories about ideomotor compatibility in dual-task performance: a reply to Greenwald (2005).

Authors:  Mei-Ching Lien; Robert S McCann; Eric Ruthruff; Robert W Proctor
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Attentional limits in memory retrieval-revisited.

Authors:  Collin Green; James C Johnston; Eric Ruthruff
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 6.  One version of direct response priming requires automatization of the relevant associations but not awareness of the prime.

Authors:  Stuart T Klapp
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2014-08-29

7.  Hesitations in continuous tracking induced by a concurrent discrete task.

Authors:  S T Klapp; P A Kelly; A Netick
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 2.888

Review 8.  Theories of the psychological refractory period.

Authors:  M C Smith
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1967-03       Impact factor: 17.737

9.  Hesitations in manual tracking: a single-channel limit in response programming.

Authors:  A Netick; S T Klapp
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Auditory streaming is cumulative.

Authors:  A S Bregman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1978-08       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  2 in total

1.  A Neuro-Computational Model for Discrete-Continuous Dual-Task Process.

Authors:  Maryam Sadeghi Talarposhti; Mohammad Ali Ahmadi-Pajouh; Farzad Towhidkhah
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 2.380

2.  The role of action effects in motor sequence planning and execution: exploring the influence of temporal and spatial effect anticipation.

Authors:  Rachel M Brown; Erik Friedgen; Iring Koch
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-06-29
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.