|
|
|
| Task 1 priority processing cannot avoid mutual interference in dual-task：Evidence from Chinese true or false words |
| WU Yanwen, Kang Cheng, Xie Jihong, Jin Guichun |
| School of Teacher Education, Tianshui Normal University, Tianshui 741001 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Using the classic psychological refractory period paradigm, the two tasks use high and low frequency discrimination （task 1） and true words or fake words （task 2） as experimental materials, and the purpose was to detect the overlapping dual-task processing, the interference between the two tasks was caused by the adjustment mechanism of the bottleneck or the restriction mechanism caused by insufficient cognitive resources. It was found that in the overlapping dual-task processing, the response selection processing of task 1 produced a very noticeable interference with the response selection processing of task 2. The shorter the SOA was, the more significant the PRP effect. The reaction selection of task 2 also produced significant reverse interference of the reaction selection of task 1, and the two tasks restricted each other during the processing. Emphasizing priority processing right of task 1 also cannot avoid the mutual interference between the two tasks. The research results support the hypothesis of the central cognitive resource sharing model that the main reason for the mutual interference of dual tasks is the lack of total cognitive resources, and that the two tasks compete for limited cognitive resources at the same time, which leads to a decrease in the work efficiency of the two tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 吴彦文, 游旭群, 李海霞. (2014). 注意力资源限制与双任务的相互干扰机制.心理学报, 46(2), 174-184.
[2] 吴彦文, 游旭群. (2007). 双任务情境下心理旋转的并行加工机制.心理学报, 39(5), 785-794.
[3] 张学民. (2007). 实验心理学. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社,271-272.
[4] 章鹏, 张琪涵, 彭国慧, 宋星, 白学军. (2016). 汉语双字词在心理词典中的表征方式: 来自fNIRS的证据.心理科学, 39(4), 849-855.
[5] Gu J., Li X., & Liversedge S. P. (2015). Character order processing in Chinese reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 127-137.
[6] Hoffmann M. A., Pieczykolan A., Koch I., & Huestegge L. (2020). Two sources of task prioritization: The interplay of effector-based and task order-based capacity allocation in the PRP paradigm.Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 82(7), 3402-3414.
[7] Katus, T., & Eimer, M. (2019). The sources of dual-task costs in multisensory working memory tasks.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(2), 175-185.
[8] Klapp S. T., Maslovat D., & Jagacinski R. J. (2019). The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 29-47.
[9] Leonhard T., Fernández S. R., Ulrich R., & Miller J. (2011). Dual-task processing when task 1 is hard and task 2 is easy: Reversed central processing order? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 115-136.
[10] Levy J., Pashler H., & Boer E. (2006). Central interference in driving: Is there any stopping the psychological refractory period? Psychological Science, 17(3), 228-235.
[11] Miller, J., & Durst, M. (2015). A comparison of the psychological refractory period and prioritized processing paradigms: Can the response-selection bottleneck model explain them both? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(5), 1420-1441.
[12] Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory.Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220-244.
[13] Pashler H., Harris C. R., & Nuechterlein K. H. (2008). Does the central bottleneck encompass voluntary selection of hedonically-based choices? Experimental Psychology, 55(5), 313-321.
[14] Schubert, T., & Strobach, T. (2018). Practice-related optimization of dual-task performance: Efficient task instantiation during overlapping task processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1884-1904.
[15] Strobach T., Hendrich E., Kübler S., Müller H., & Schubert T. (2018). Processing order in dual-task situations: The “first-come, first-served” principle and the impact of task order instructions.Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1785-1803.
[16] Strobach T., Kübler S., & Schubert T. (2019). Endogenous control of task-order preparation in variable dual tasks.Psychological Research, 85(1), 345-363.
[17] Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 1-36.
[18] Töllner T., Strobach T., Torsten S. T., & Müller H. J. (2012). The effect of task order predictability in audio-visual dual task performance: Just a central capacity limitation? Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 75-87.
[19] Tombu, M., & Jolic? ur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3-18.
[20] Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2005). Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 790-802.
[21] White, D., & Besner, D. (2018). Attentional constraints on semantic activation: Evidence from Stroop’s paradigm.Acta Psychologica, 189, 4-11.
[22] Wu, C., & Liu, Y. (2008). Queuing network modeling of the psychological refractory period (PRP).Psychological Review, 115(4), 913-954. |
|
|
|
