Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Refractory Period, Psychological”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

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

Four experiments examined whether the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect can be eliminated with ideomotor compatible (IM) but not stimulus-response compatible (SR) tasks, as reported by A. G. Greenwald and H. G. Shulman (1973). Their tasks were used: a left or right movement to a left- or right-pointing arrow (IM) or to the word left or right (SR) for Task 1; saying "A" or "B" (IM) or "1" or "2" (SR) to an auditory A or B for Task 2. The stimulus onset asynchronies were 0, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 1,000 ms in Experiment 1, and only 0, 100, 200, and 1,000 ms in Experiments 2-4. The arrow was in the center of the screen in Experiments 1-3 and to the left or right in Experiment 4. As in Greenwald and Shulman's Experiment 2, the instructions stated that most often the 2 stimuli would be presented simultaneously. A PRP effect was obtained in all conditions, most likely because response-selection decisions are required even for IM tasks.

Refractory Period, Psychological↗
NASA NTRS2002

Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection

The purpose of this paper was to provide insight into the nature of response selection by reviewing the literature on stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects and the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect individually and jointly. The empirical findings and theoretical explanations of SRC effects that have been studied within a single-task context suggest that there are two response-selection routes-automatic activation and intentional translation. In contrast, all major PRP models reviewed in this paper have treated response selection as a single processing stage. In particular, the response-selection bottleneck (RSB) model assumes that the processing of Task 1 and Task 2 comprises two separate streams and that the PRP effect is due to a bottleneck located at response selection. Yet, considerable evidence from studies of SRC in the PRP paradigm shows that the processing of the two tasks is more interactive than is suggested by the RSB model and by most other models of the PRP effect. The major implication drawn from the studies of SRC effects in the PRP context is that response activation is a distinct process from final response selection. Response activation is based on both long-term and short-term task-defined S-R associations and occurs automatically and in parallel for the two tasks. The final response selection is an intentional act required even for highly compatible and practiced tasks and is restricted to processing one task at a time. Investigations of SRC effects and response-selection variables in dual-task contexts should be conducted more systematically because they provide significant insight into the nature of response-selection mechanisms.

Review Literature↗
NASA NTRS2003

Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm

Three experiments examined the effects of task switching and response correspondence in a psychological refractory period paradigm. A letter task (vowel-consonant) and a digit task (odd-even) were combined to form 4 possible dual-task pairs in each trial: letter-letter, letter-digit, digit-digit, and digit-letter. Foreknowledge of task transition (repeat or switch) and task identity (letter or digit) was varied across experiments: no foreknowledge in Experiment 1, partial foreknowledge (task transition only) in Experiment 2, and full foreknowledge in Experiment 3. For all experiments, the switch cost for Task 2 was additive with stimulus onset asynchrony, and the response-correspondence effect for Task 2 was numerically smaller in the switch condition than in the repeat condition. These outcomes suggest that reconfiguration for Task 2 takes place after the central processing of Task 1 and that the crosstalk correspondence effect is due to response activation by way of stimulus-response associations.

Cognition↗
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 NTRS1997

Practice Drastically Reduces Interference in the Psychological Refractory Period Paradigm

Six subjects were given 36 sessions of practice in a PRP paradigm. Task 1 required vocal responses, while Task 2 required manual responses. Unlike previous experiments with two manual response tasks, practice dramatically reduced the size of the PRP interference, from an initial 353 msec to only 40 msec. Analysis of factor interactions support a central bottleneck model of Task 2 postponement both early and late in practice.

VanSelst, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2005

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

The present study examined whether the central bottleneck, assumed to be primarily responsible for the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect, is intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus with ideomotor (IM)-compatible tasks. In 4 experiments, factorial combinations of IM- and non-IM-compatible tasks were used for Task 1 and Task 2. All experiments showed substantial PRP effects, with a strong dependency between Task 1 and Task 2 response times. These findings, along with model-based simulations, indicate that the processing bottleneck was not bypassed, even with two IM-compatible tasks. Nevertheless, systematic changes in the PRP and correspondence effects across experiments suggest that IM compatibility shifted the locus of the bottleneck. The findings favor an engage-bottleneck-later hypothesis, whereby parallelism between tasks occurs deeper into the processing stream for IM- than for non-IM-compatible tasks, without the bottleneck being actually eliminated.

Psychomotor Performance↗
NASA NTRS1973

Forced guidance and distribution of practice in sequential information processing.

Distribution of practice and forced guidance were used in a sequential information-processing task in an attempt to increase the capacity of human information-processing mechanisms. A reaction time index of the psychological refractory period was used as the response measure. Massing of practice lengthened response times while forced guidance shortened them. Interpretation was in terms of load reduction upon the response-selection stage of the information-processing system.-

Decker, L. R.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Objective measure of pilot workload

Timesharing behavior in a data-entry task, similar to a pilot entering navigation data into an on-board computer is investigated. Auditory reaction time as a function of stimulus information and dimensionality is examined. This study has direct implications for stimulus selection for secondary tasks used in the GAT flight simulator at Ames Research Center. Attenuation effects of heat and cold stress in a psychological refractory period task were studied. The focus of interest is the general effects of stress on attention rather than upon specific temperature related phenomena.

Kantowitz, B. H.↗
NASA NTRS1995

The PRP Effect Following Callosotomy: Residual Interference Despite Uncoupling of Lateralized Response Codes

A callosotomy patient was tested in two dual-task experiments requiring successive speeded responses to lateralized stimuli. In accord with the recent findings of Pashler, O'Brien, Luck, Hillyard, Mangun, and Gazzaniga (in press), the patient showed a robust psychological refractory period effect (PRP) responses on Task 2 were inversely related to the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA). However, three aspects of our data indicated that the processing limitations for the patient were different than those observed with control subjects. First, the split-brain patient did not show an increase in reaction time when the two tasks required responses from a common output system (i.e., both manual responses) in comparison to when different output systems were used (i.e., manual-vocal). Second, inconsistent stimulus-response mappings for the two tasks greatly inflated response latencies for the control subjects, but had minimal effect on the performance of the split-brain patient. Third, the consistency manipulation was underadditive with SOA for only the patient, suggesting a later bottleneck in processing following callosotomy than was observed for the control subjects. It is proposed that sectioning the corpus callosum eliminates interference resulting from competing stimulus response codes. Nonetheless, dual-task interference persists for the split-brain subject because a subcortical gate constrains when selected responses can be implemented.

Ivry, Richard B.↗
NASA NTRS1996

The Role of Response Processing in the Single-Channel PRP Bottleneck

Does the single-channel bottleneck occur in the psychological refractory period paradigm in the absence of overt responses? A go/no-go paradigm was used to vary a default response on all trials, multiple go responses were used. Results show that the bottleneck is still present on trials that do not require a response, but its duration is reduced.

VanSelst, Mark↗
NASA NTRS1997

Response Modality Modulator PRP Interference, Even When Task 1 is a no-go trial

In a Psychological Refractory Period paradigm where the first task requires one of several possible responses on some trials (the go trials), but no response on other (no-go) trials, response modality modulates the amount of interference on Task 2 processing. This is true even when Task 1 is no-go trial. Differences in the cost of switching response sets between processing for Task 1 and Task 2 may provide an account of this surprising phenomenon.

VanSelst, Mark↗
NASA NTRS1998

Effects of Single-Task Interference on Dual-Task Interference

Van Sergi, Ruthruff and Johnston found that dual-task practice can markedly reduce interference in the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm. Their results are consistent with a bottleneck model in which practice serves primarily to reduce stage durations. This model predicts that single-task practice on Task 1 alone should produce marked reductions in interference, whereas single-task practice on Task 2 should not. New experiments test these predictions. Alternative theoretical accounts are also considered.

Johnson, James C.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: graded capacity sharing or central postponement?

Most studies using the psychological refractory period (PRP) design suggest that dual-task performance is limited by a central bottleneck. Because subjects are usually told to emphasize Task 1, however, the bottleneck might reflect a strategic choice rather than a structural limitation. To evaluate the possibility that central operations can proceed in parallel, albeit with capacity limitations, we conducted two dual-task experiments with equal task emphasis. In both experiments, subjects tended to either group responses together or respond to one task well before the other. In addition, stimulus-response compatibility effects were roughly constant across stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). At the short SOA, compatibility effects also carried over onto response times for the other task. This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with the possibility that subjects share capacity roughly equally between simultaneous central operations. However, this pattern is consistent with the existence of a structural central bottleneck.

Auditory Perception↗
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 NTRS2000

A dual-task investigation of automaticity in visual word processing

An analysis of activation models of visual word processing suggests that frequency-sensitive forms of lexical processing should proceed normally while unattended. This hypothesis was tested by having participants perform a speeded pitch discrimination task followed by lexical decisions or word naming. As the stimulus onset asynchrony between the tasks was reduced, lexical-decision and naming latencies increased dramatically. Word-frequency effects were additive with the increase, indicating that frequency-sensitive processing was subject to postponement while attention was devoted to the other task. Either (a) the same neural hardware shares responsibility for lexical processing and central stages of choice reaction time task processing and cannot perform both computations simultaneously, or (b) lexical processing is blocked in order to optimize performance on the pitch discrimination task. Either way, word processing is not as automatic as activation models suggest.

Attention↗
NASA NTRS2002

Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice

E. H. Schumacher, T. L. Seymour, J. M. Glass, D. E. Kieras, and D. E. Meyer (2001) reported that dual-task costs are minimal when participants are practiced and give the 2 tasks equal emphasis. The present research examined whether such findings are compatible with the operation of an efficient response selection bottleneck. Participants trained until they were able to perform both tasks simultaneously without interference. Novel stimulus pairs produced no reaction time costs, arguing against the development of compound stimulus-response associations (Experiment 1). Manipulating the relative onsets (Experiments 2 and 4) and durations (Experiments 3 and 4) of response selection processes did not lead to dual-task costs. The results indicate that the 2 tasks did not share a bottleneck after practice.

Practice (Psychology)↗
NASA NTRS2003

Bimanual cross-talk during reaching movements is primarily related to response selection, not the specification of motor parameters

Simultaneous reaching movements made with the two hands can show a considerable increase in reaction time (RT) when they differ in terms of direction or extent, compared to when the movements involve the same direction and extent. This cost has been attributed to cross-talk in the specification of the motor parameters for the two hands. However, a recent study [Diedrichsen, Hazeltine, Kennerley, & Ivry, (2001). Psychological Science, 12, 493-498] indicates that when reaching movements are cued by the onset of the target endpoint, no compatibility effects are observed. To determine why directly cued movements are immune from interference, we varied the stimulus onset asynchrony for the two movements and used different combinations of directly cued and symbolically cued movements. In two experiments, compatibility effects were only observed when both movements were symbolically cued. No difference was found between compatible and incompatible movements when both movements were directly cued or when one was directly cued and the other was symbolically cued. These results indicate that interference is not related to the specification of movement parameters but instead emerges from processes associated with response selection. Moreover, the data suggest that cross-talk, when present, primarily shortens the RT of the second movement on compatible trials rather than lengthening this RT on incompatible trials.

Randomized Controlled Trial↗