Literature DB >> 34755320

Bypassing the central bottleneck with easy tasks: Beyond ideomotor compatibility.

Morgan Lyphout-Spitz1, François Maquestiaux2,3, Eric Ruthruff4.   

Abstract

Maquestiaux, Lyphout-Spitz, Ruthruff, and Arexis (2020) demonstrated that ideomotor-compatible (IM) tasks (e.g., pressing the left key when an arrow points left) can operate automatically, entirely bypassing the central bottleneck that constrains dual-task performance. But is bottleneck bypassing a specific consequence of IM compatibility or is it due to task ease? To answer this question, we tested the automaticity of a task that was easy but not IM. The task was easy due to the high semantic compatibility between the stimulus and the response: saying "ping" when hearing "pong" and "pong" to "ping" in Experiment 1, saying "low" when hearing "high" and "high" to "low" in Experiment 2. We presented it as Task 2, along with a Task 1 that was not easy, due to the use of an arbitrary stimulus-response mapping. Single-task trials were randomly intermixed with dual-task trials and then used as baselines to assess dual-task costs and to simulate distributions of inter-response intervals (IRIs) predictive of bottleneck bypassing vs. bottlenecking. The results of both experiments provided converging evidence that the entire Task 2 bypassed the bottleneck on virtually all trials: very small dual-task costs, high percentages of response reversals, and a close match between the observed IRI distributions and that predicted by bottleneck bypassing. Neither ideomotor compatibility nor task speed (the semantic task was not particularly fast) explain these findings. We therefore propose that the key to bypassing the central bottleneck is the ease with which people can fully load the stimulus-response mapping into working memory.
© 2021. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automatic processing; Central bottleneck; Dual-task interference; Ideomotor compatibility; Response selection

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34755320     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-021-01974-1

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


  7 in total

1.  Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification.

Authors:  Mei-Ching Lien; Robert W Proctor; Philip A Allen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Still no evidence for perfect timesharing with two ideomotor-compatible tasks: a reply to Greenwald (2003).

Authors:  Mei-Ching Lien; Robert W Proctor; Eric Ruthroff
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?

Authors:  Eric Ruthruff; James C Johnston; Mark Van Selst; Shelly Whitsell; Roger Remington
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Dual-task performance with ideomotor-compatible tasks: is the central processing bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus?

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.  Practice-related optimization of dual-task performance: Efficient task instantiation during overlapping task processing.

Authors:  Torsten Schubert; Tilo Strobach
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Investigating perfect timesharing: the relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance.

Authors:  Kimberly M Halvorson; Herschel Ebner; Eliot Hazeltine
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?

Authors:  M Van Selst; E Ruthruff; J C Johnston
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.332

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.