A comparison of the psychological refractory period and prioritized processing paradigms: Can the response-selection bottleneck model explain them both?

Abstract

Four experiments examined whether well-established phenomena from the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm are also observed in the prioritized processing paradigm, as would be expected from a common description of the 2 paradigms with the response selection bottleneck (RSB) model. Consistent with a generalization of the RSB model to the prioritized processing paradigm, Experiments 1 and 2 showed that this paradigm yields effects of SOA and stimulus discriminability analogous to those observed in the PRP paradigm. In Experiments 3 and 4, however, overall RTs and effect sizes differed between the PRP and prioritized processing paradigms in ways that are difficult to explain within the RSB model. Understanding the differences between these 2 paradigms offers considerable promise as a way to extend the RSB model beyond the domain of the PRP paradigm and to generalize our understanding of multitasking interference.

Effects of a no-go Task 2 on Task 1 performance in dual - tasking: From benefits to costs

“…In Experiment 1 of Miller and Durst (2014), participants gave both responses with either the left or the right index finger, and the fastest RT1s were observed in R1-R2 compatible trials, intermediate RT1s in R1-R2 incompatible trials, and the slowest RT1s if Task 2 was a no-go trial (even though none of these possible R2s actually had to be carried out). 1 The results revealed both an R1-R2 and a no-go BCE in this experiment, and similarly so in Experiments 1 and 2 of Miller and Durst (2015). In contrast, using different sets of effectors for both tasks, no R1-R2 BCE was reported in Miller and Durst's (2014) Experiment 2.…”

“…Thus, on each trial, only one response is required, and clear priority is given to Task 1, since S2 need not even be considered if Task 1 is a go trial. In many respects, the performance patterns in the PP paradigm are reconcilable with the bottleneck model used to explain the PRP effect (see, in particular, Miller & Durst, 2015).…”

The hard work of doing nothing: Accounting for inhibitory costs during multiple action control

“…Closer relatives to our own design are dual-task studies (with two distinct stimuli for each task) involving a go/nogo task as Task 2. For example, Miller (2006) showed that trials involving a no-go stimulus (vs. a go stimulus) in Task 2 were characterized by a Task 1 RT increase (see also Janczyk & Huestegge, 2017;Miller & Durst, 2014, 2015. It was assumed that this effect is based on an inhibitory response triggered by the no-go stimulus, which (either directly or via its transformation into a dedicated Binhibitory response^selection process) eventually prolongs Task 1 processing (see Röttger & Haider, 2016).…”

To prepare or not to prepare? When preparation of a response in Task 2 induces extra performance costs in Task 1

“…Task 1 response times (RTs) were shorter when Task 2 required a response relative to when it did not. This no-go backward crosstalk effect (no-go BCE) is an example of how dual-task costs are actually reduced when two motor tasks have to be carried out (see also Ko & Miller, 2014;Miller & Durst, 2014, 2015, even though the addition of a second task certainly impedes performance of the first task overall (i.e., general dual-task costs are present).…”