xperiment 1 demonstrated a new kind of dual-task interference effect. The primary task was a speeded left-right discrimination of stimulus position (R1). The un speeded secondary task consisted of reporting verbally whether the stimuli were the same or different (R2). Stimulus exposure time was either 150 or 2000 msec. Two groups of subjects performed the primary task only, whereas two other groups performed both tasks and were instructed to emit R1 before R2. It was reasoned that the decision would be made to emit R1 before R2, and that this decision would produce a lengthening of R1. The results supported this prediction. Experiment 2 showed that the interference effect also occurred when the subjects were not explicitly instructed to emit R1 before R2, and was not due to either the mere presence of the second task or to response grouping. Experiments 3 and 4 compared two possible models for explaining the interference effect, i.e. the capacity-sharing model and the postponement model. As predicted by the postponement model, task difficulty did not interact, or interacted underadditively, with task overlap (Experiment 3), and the interference effect was not influenced by the amount of processing resources devoted to the primary task (Experiment 4). It was concluded that this new type of interference effect is best explained by the version of the postponement model that locates the bottleneck at the decision stage.

The cost of a strategy.

C. UMILTA';SIMION, FRANCESCA;TAGLIABUE, MARIAELENA;
1992

Abstract

xperiment 1 demonstrated a new kind of dual-task interference effect. The primary task was a speeded left-right discrimination of stimulus position (R1). The un speeded secondary task consisted of reporting verbally whether the stimuli were the same or different (R2). Stimulus exposure time was either 150 or 2000 msec. Two groups of subjects performed the primary task only, whereas two other groups performed both tasks and were instructed to emit R1 before R2. It was reasoned that the decision would be made to emit R1 before R2, and that this decision would produce a lengthening of R1. The results supported this prediction. Experiment 2 showed that the interference effect also occurred when the subjects were not explicitly instructed to emit R1 before R2, and was not due to either the mere presence of the second task or to response grouping. Experiments 3 and 4 compared two possible models for explaining the interference effect, i.e. the capacity-sharing model and the postponement model. As predicted by the postponement model, task difficulty did not interact, or interacted underadditively, with task overlap (Experiment 3), and the interference effect was not influenced by the amount of processing resources devoted to the primary task (Experiment 4). It was concluded that this new type of interference effect is best explained by the version of the postponement model that locates the bottleneck at the decision stage.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11577/2462592
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 38
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 38
social impact