Engineering topics

Ruthruff, E.

Publications and source records attributed to Ruthruff, E..

6 records

NASA NTRS2001

Switching between simple cognitive tasks: the interaction of top-down and bottom-up factors

How do top-down factors (e.g., task expectancy) and bottom-up factors (e.g., task recency) interact to produce an overall level of task readiness? This question was addressed by factorially manipulating task expectancy and task repetition in a task-switching paradigm. The effects of expectancy and repetition on response time tended to interact underadditively, but only because the traditional binary task-repetition variable lumps together all switch trials, ignoring variation in task lag. When the task-recency variable was scaled continuously, all 4 experiments instead showed additivity between expectancy and recency. The results indicated that expectancy and recency influence different stages of mental processing. One specific possibility (the configuration-execution model) is that task expectancy affects the time required to configure upcoming central operations, whereas task recency affects the time required to actually execute those central operations.

Cognition↗

NASA NTRS2001

Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: structural limitation or strategic postponement?

Recent evidence indicates that a central bottleneck causes much of the slowing that occurs when two tasks are performed at the same time. This bottleneck might reflect a structural limitation inherent in the cognitive architecture. Alternatively, the bottleneck might reflect strategic (i.e., voluntary) postponement, induced by instructions to emphasize one task over the other. To distinguish structural limitations from strategic postponement, we examine a new paradigm in which subjects are told to place equal emphasis on both tasks and to emit both responses at about the same time. An experiment using this paradigm demonstrated patterns of interference that cannot easily be attributed to strategic postponement, preparation effects, or conflicts in response production. The data conform closely to the predictions of structural central bottleneck models.

Attention↗

NASA NTRS2001

Why practice reduces dual-task interference

M. A. Van Selst, E. Ruthruff, and J. C. Johnston (1999) found that practice dramatically reduced dual-task interference in a Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm with 1 vocal response and 1 manual response. Results from 3 further experiments using the highly trained participants of M. A. Van Selst et al. (1999) support 4 main conclusions: (a) A processing bottleneck exists even after extensive practice; (b) the principal cause of the reduction in PRP interference with practice is shortening of Task 1 bottleneck stages; (c) a secondary cause is that 1 or more, but not all, of the Task 2 substages that are postponed before practice are not postponed after practice (i.e., become automatized); and (d) the extent of PRP reduction with practice depends on the modalities of the 2 responses. A control experiment with 2 manual response tasks showed less PRP reduction with practice than that found by Van Selst et al.

Auditory Perception/physiology↗

NASA NTRS1999

Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?

Can people learn to perform two tasks at the same time without interference? To answer this question, the authors trained 6 participants for 36 sessions in a Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) experiment, where Task 1 required a speeded vocal response to an auditory stimulus and Task 2 required a speeded manual response to a visual stimulus. The large PRP effect found initially (353 ms in Session 1) shrank to only about 40 ms over the course of practice, disappearing entirely for 1 of the 6 participants. This reduction in the PRP effect with practice is considerably larger than has been previously reported. The obtained pattern of factor interactions between stimulus onset asynchrony and each of three task difficulty manipulations (Task 1 judgment difficulty, Task 2 stimulus contrast, and Task 2 mapping compatibility) supports a postponement (bottleneck) account of dual-task interference, both before and after practice.

Pitch Perception/physiology↗

NASA NTRS1996

Expectancy and Repetition in Task Preparation

We studied the mechanisms of task preparation using a design that pitted task expectancy against task repetition. In one experiment, two simple cognitive tasks were presented in a predictable sequence containing both repetitions and non-repetitions. The typical task sequence was AABBAABB. Occasional violations of this sequence allowed us to measure the effects of valid versus invalid expectancy. With this design, we were able to study the effects of task expectancy, task repetition, and interaction.

Ruthruff, E.↗

NASA NTRS1996

A test of the deadline model for speed-accuracy tradeoffs

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the deadline model for speed-accuracy tradeoffs. According to the deadline model, participants in speeded-response tasks terminate stimulus discrimination as soon as it has run to completion or as soon as a predetermined time deadline has arrived, whichever comes first. Speed is traded for accuracy by varying the time deadlines; short deadlines yield fast but sometimes inaccurate responses, whereas long deadlines allow for slow, accurate responses. A new prediction of this model, based on a comparison of reaction time distributions, was derived and tested in experiments involving the joint manipulation of speed stress and stimulus discriminability. Clear violations of this prediction were observed when participants made relative brightness judgments (Experiment 1) and when they made lexical decisions (Experiment 2), rejecting both the deadline model and the fast-guess model. Several alternative models for speed-accuracy tradeoffs, including random-walk and accumulator models, are compatible with the results.

Discrimination (Psychology)↗