Distorted subjective reports of stimulus onsets under dual-task conditions: Delayed conscious perception or estimation bias?

Bratzke, Daniel; Bryce, Donna; Seifried-Dübon, Tanja

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.07.016

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous conceptualization of IRTs in dual tasks in light of the unified attentional bottleneck model imply that IRTs reflect relatively veridical time estimates of the consciously accessible internal processing times (Corallo et al, 2008;Marti et al, 2010). Others have proposed that introspective RTs in dual-task situations reflect retrospective inferences based on a variety of cues (Bratzke & Bryce, 2016Bratzke et al, 2014;; see also Klein & Stolz, 2018). In line with the latter assumption, one could argue that in the present study, participants inferred their IRTs from, for example, their experience of the between-trial sequence of R1-R2 compatibility or of the sequence of required and performed responses (e.g., 50% of compatible-compatible and incompatible-incompatible sequences include full response repetitions).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous studies have demonstrated that introspection about dual-task costs is severely limited, since participants are usually not aware of the PRP effect (Bratzke & Bryce, 2016;Bratzke, Bryce, & Seifried-Dübon, 2014;Corallo, Sackur, Dehaene, & Sigman, 2008;Marti, Sackur, Sigman, Dehaene, 2010; for a diverging pattern regarding task switch costs, see Bratzke & Bryce, 2019). To assess people's introspection, most of these studies used the method of quantified introspection (Corallo et al, 2008), in which participants provide estimates of their RTs (introspective reaction times, IRTs) after each trial.…”

Section: Introspection About Backward Crosstalk In Dual-task Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Introspection about backward crosstalk in dual-task performance

Bratzke

Janczyk

2020

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated participants' ability to introspect about the effect of between-task crosstalk in dual tasks. In two experiments, participants performed a compatibility-based backward crosstalk dual task, and additionally provided estimates of their RTs (introspective reaction times, IRTs) after each trial (Experiment 1) or after each pair of prime and test trials (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the objective performance showed the typical backward crosstalk effect and its sequential modulation depending on compatibility in the previous trial. Very similar patterns were observed in IRTs, despite the typical unawareness of the PRP effect. In sum, these results demonstrate the reliability of between-task crosstalk in dual tasks and that people's introspection about the temporal processing demands in this complex dual-task situation is intriguingly accurate and severely limited at the same time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introspection About Backward Crosstalk In Dual-task Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Introspection about backward crosstalk in dual-task performance

Bratzke

Janczyk

2020

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, a few applied studies using continuous dual-task paradigms (e.g., cell phone use during driving) have suggested that people are often not aware of the costs associated with multitasking (e.g., Horrey, Lesch, & Garabet, 2009; Lesch & Hancock, 2004), even though they may actually anticipate costs before they engage in multitasking (Finley, Benjamin, & McCarley, 2014). Recent laboratory research using a discrete dual task confirmed that people cannot accurately introspect about their dual-task costs (Bratzke & Bryce, 2016; Bratzke, Bryce, & Seifried-Dübon, 2014; Bryce & Bratzke, 2014, 2015, 2017; Corallo, Sackur, Dehaene, & Sigman, 2008; Marti, Sackur, Sigman, & Dehaene, 2010). All these studies used the classical psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm in which participants perform two tasks with varying temporal overlap (i.e., stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introspection is not always blind to the costs of multitasking: The case of task switching.

Bratzke¹,

Bryce²

2019

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have provided evidence that introspection about dual-task performance in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm is severely limited. The present study investigated introspection at the other pole of the multitasking continuum, namely task switching. In 2 experiments, participants provided estimates of their response times (i.e., introspective RTs) after each trial in modified versions of the alternating-runs and the task-cuing paradigm, which included only 2 tasks in a trial. In contrast to the previously observed unawareness of dual-task costs in the PRP paradigm, participants reported their switch costs in introspective RTs. Thus, introspection about multitasking performance appears to not always be as limited as in the PRP paradigm. Nevertheless, introspection is not without limits also in task switching. Participants only partly reported the beneficial impact of longer preparation time on their performance. The present results suggest that introspective RTs depend on multiple cues, of which some are valid and some are invalid. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

“…A few previous studies modified the so-called clock paradigm to allow for presentation of visual instead of auditory stimuli during clock presentation (e.g., Bratzke, Bryce, & Seifried-Dübon, 2014;Carlson, Hogendoorn, & Verstraten, 2006;Yabe & Goodale, 2015). Yet, these studies did not investigate IB but rather dual tasking, visual attention, or reactions to stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentional binding of visual effects

Rueß

Thomaschke

Kiesel

2018

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When an action produces an effect, the effect is perceived earlier in time compared to a stimulus without preceding action. This temporal bias is called intentional binding (IB) and serves as an implicit measure of sense of agency. Typically, IB is investigated by presenting a rotating clock hand while participants execute an action and perceive a resulting tone. Participants are asked to estimate the time point of tone onset by referring to the clock hand position. This time point estimate is compared to a time point estimate of a tone in a condition in which the tone occurs without preceding action. Studies employing this classic clock paradigm employed auditory action effects. We modified this paradigm to investigate potential IB of visual action effects, and, additionally, to investigate how IB differs for visual action effects (Experiment 1) in comparison to auditory action effects (Experiment 2). Our results show that, like the IB of an auditory effect, the time point of a visual action effect is shifted toward the causing action, and that the size of the IB depends on the delay duration of the effect. Comparable to auditory action effects, earlier action effects showed stronger IB compared to later action effects. Yet overall IB of the visual effects was weaker than IB of the auditory effects. As IB is seen as an indicator of sense of agency, this may have important implications for the design of human-machine interfaces.

show abstract

Distorted subjective reports of stimulus onsets under dual-task conditions: Delayed conscious perception or estimation bias?

Cited by 11 publications

References 34 publications

Introspection about backward crosstalk in dual-task performance

Introspection about backward crosstalk in dual-task performance

Introspection is not always blind to the costs of multitasking: The case of task switching.

Intentional binding of visual effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About