Literature DB >> 31240614

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

David A Rosenbaum1, Bill V Bui2.   

Abstract

What accounts for the subjective difficulty of a task? It is easy to suggest ad hoc measures, such as how many individuals can do the task, how long it takes them to do it, how likely they are to complete it, how much attention it requires, and so on. But having such ad hoc measures may miss the point that it is possible to judge the relative difficulty of different kinds of tasks, suggesting that there may be a common basis for judging task difficulty. If there is such a common basis, it might be used to compare the difficulties of different kinds of task. We tested two hypotheses about what the common basis might be. One was that time serves this role. This hypothesis was attractive because time is amodal and previous studies have provided support for the hypothesis that time might be an index of task difficulty. The other hypothesis was new. According to the new hypothesis, the subjective difficulty of a task corresponds to its estimated sustainability. We obtained results consistent with the time hypothesis, but our data were less supportive of the sustainability hypothesis.

Keywords:  action; subjective difficulty; task switching or executive control; timing

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31240614     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-019-01631-8

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


  8 in total

1.  Which task will we choose first? Precrastination and cognitive load in task ordering.

Authors:  Lisa R Fournier; Emily Coder; Clark Kogan; Nisha Raghunath; Ezana Taddese; David A Rosenbaum
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  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

3.  Psychophysiological investigation of vigilance decrement: boredom or cognitive fatigue?

Authors:  Nathalie Pattyn; Xavier Neyt; David Henderickx; Eric Soetens
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2007-10-03

4.  Trade-offs between gaze and working memory use.

Authors:  Jason A Droll; Mary M Hayhoe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  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

6.  How are cognitive and physical difficulty compared?

Authors:  Cory Adam Potts; Stefan Pastel; David A Rosenbaum
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand.

Authors:  Wouter Kool; Joseph T McGuire; Zev B Rosen; Matthew M Botvinick
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2010-11

8.  Judging the subjective difficulty of different kinds of tasks.

Authors:  Iman Feghhi; David A Rosenbaum
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 3.332

  8 in total
  2 in total

1.  Quantifying brain state transition cost via Schrödinger Bridge.

Authors:  Genji Kawakita; Shunsuke Kamiya; Shuntaro Sasai; Jun Kitazono; Masafumi Oizumi
Journal:  Netw Neurosci       Date:  2022-02-01

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.