Dividing attention within and between hemispheres: Testing a multiple resources approach to limited-capacity information processing.

Friedman, Alinda; Polson, Martha C.; Dafoe, Cameron G.; Gaskill, Sarah J.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.8.5.625

Cited by 119 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rate of the sequential tapping was self-paced, and the subjects were instructed to stop after touching each finger once. The finger tapping part of this paradigm was designed to control for the auditory prompt used in VG and to distract the subjects from performing verb generation, as this type of activity is relatively incompatible with continued engagement in verbal processing; finger tapping is known to decrease the ability to generate fluent speech in adults [39,40]. Monitoring finger tapping via closed-circuit TV also provided a gross assessment of task performance by the subjects.…”

Section: Verb Generation Task (Vg)-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive presurgical functional MRI language evaluation in adult patients with epilepsy

Szaflarski

Holland

Jacola

et al. 2008

Epilepsy & Behavior

113

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has the potential to replace the intracarotid amobarbital procedure (IAP) in presurgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy patients. In this study, we compared fMRI verb generation (VG) and semantic decision/tone decision (SDTD) tasks and the IAP in their ability to localize language functions in patients with epilepsy undergoing presurgical evaluation. We enrolled 50 healthy controls to establish normal language activation patterns for VG and SDTD tasks at 3 or 4 T, and to design language regions of interest (ROIs) that were later applied to 38 patients with epilepsy (28 of 38 also underwent the IAP). We calculated laterality indices (LIs) for each task for each subject based on the ROIs, and we used general linear modeling to analyze the fMRI data. All healthy and epileptic subjects activated language areas with both fMRI tasks. We found significant correlations in language lateralization between the fMRI tasks (r = 0.495, P ≤ 0.001) and between VG and IAP (r = 0.652, P < 0.001) and SDTD and IAP (r = 0.735, P < 0.001). The differences in LIs between SDTD and VG tasks were small and not affected by age, gender, epilepsy status, handedness, or performance. SDTD and VG tasks combined explained approximately 58.4% in the variability of the IAP/language. In the general linear modeling, only the SDTD task significantly contributed to the determination of language lateralization in patients with epilepsy undergoing presurgical evaluation. Results indicate a moderate convergent validity between both fMRI language tasks and between IAP and fMRI tasks. The results of this study indicate that either of these fMRI tasks can be used for language lateralization in patients with epilepsy undergoing presurgical evaluation, but that the SDTD task is likely to provide more information regarding language lateralization than the VG task.

show abstract

Section: Verb Generation Task (Vg)-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive presurgical functional MRI language evaluation in adult patients with epilepsy

Szaflarski

Holland

Jacola

et al. 2008

Epilepsy & Behavior

113

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, tasks usually interfere more the more similar they are or the closer their processing loci are in cerebral space (Kinsbourne, 1981(Kinsbourne, , 1982. The proposal to regard the two hemispheres as two separate resource pools (e.g., Friedman & Polson, 1981;Friedman, Poison, Dafoe, & Gaskill, 1982) does not seem convincing, mainly in view of the fact that betweenhemisphere interference does exist and that task interference seems to be a continuous function of cerebral distance between processing loci (see Kinsbourne & Hicks, 1978). It is more plausible that the decrease in interference with greater cerebral distance is due to reduced outcome conflict between distant processing loci.…”

Section: _____mentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference.

Navon¹,

Miller²

1987

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

252

281

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional explanation for dual-task interference is that tasks compete for scarce processing resources. Another possible explanation is that the outcome of the processing required for one task conflicts with the processing required for the other task (e.g., cross talk). To explore the contribution of outcome conflict to task interference, we manipulated the relatedness of the tasks. In Experiment 1, subjects searched concurrently for names of boys in one channel and names of cities in another channel. Responses were significantly delayed when a nontarget on one channel belonged to, or was even just related to, the category designated as the target for the other channel. No comparable effects were found when the tasks were performed in isolation. Thus, the difficulty of the individual tasks is not the only determinant of how much they will interfere when combined, and there must be substantial interactions between processes carrying out the two tasks. In Experiment 2 subjects searched one channel for specific target letters and another channel for specific target digits. The mmtargets in a channel were either from the same alphanumeric category as the targets for that channel or from the opposite category (i.e., the category of the targets for the other channel). It was found that although between-category search was more efficient than witbin-category search in single tasks, it was less efficient in dual tasks. Thus, there appear to be significant task interactions due to the confusability emerging when the nontargeU of one task belong to the same category as the targets of the concurrent task. In addition, the congruence of target presence or absence on the two channels was found to have a sizeable effect. We suggest four potential sources of outcome conflict that may contribute to dual-task interference, and we conjecture that a great deal of the residual interference might result from other sorts of outcome conflict.When two tasks are attempted at the same time, the typical result is some cost. The cost may be manifested in two ways. First, a deficit may be observed in the performance of either or both tasks with respect to the single-task performance level. Second, task performance may exhibit a trade-off so that the performance of one task can be improved only at the expense of performance on the other task.One way to explain dual-task interference effects is to assume that the two tasks require the same sort of limited internal input for processing. When the demand for a limited input exceeds the supply, processes carrying out the two tasks must compete for what both need, and interference results.An obvious case of competition arises when two tasks require incompatible uses of a single sensory mechanism or effector; for example, a person cannot simultaneously look or reach the right hand in two different directions. However, many instances The order of authorship was decided by a coin toss.

show abstract

“…Another psychological explanation for dual-task interference is that concurrent tasks interfere with one another because they compete for some limited resource (Broadbent, 1957;Kahneman, 1973;Wickens, 1980;Friedman et al, 1982). A plausible neurophysiological hypothesis is that two tasks which depend on activation of the same part of the cortex at the same time will interfere.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent performance of two working memory tasks: potential mechanisms of interference

Klingberg

1998

Cerebral Cortex

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When two tasks are performed simultaneously, performance often deteriorates, with concomitant increases in reaction time and error rate. Three potential neurophysiological mechanisms behind this deterioration in performance have been considered here: (i) dual-task performance requires additional cognitive operations and activation of cortical areas in addition to those active during single-task performance; (ii) two tasks interfere if they require activation of the same part of cortex; and (iii) cross-modal inhibition causes interference between two tasks involving stimuli from different sensory modalities. Positron emission tomography was used to measure regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) during performance of an auditory working memory (WM) task, a visual WM task, both WM tasks (dual task) and a control condition. Compared to the control condition, the auditory and visual WM tasks activated sensory-specific areas in the superior temporal gyrus and occipital pole respectively. Both WM tasks also activated overlapping parts of cortex in the dorsolateral prefrontal, inferior parietal and cingulate cortex. There was no separate cortical area which was activated only in the dual task, and thus no area which could be associated with any dual task specific cognitive process such as task-coordination or divided attention. Decrease in rCBF in one WM task did not overlap with the areas of rCBF increase in the other WM task. However, an inhibitory mechanism could not be ruled out, since the rCBF increase in sensory specific areas was smaller in the dual-task condition than in the single-task conditions. The cortical activity underlying WM was to a large extent organized in a non-sensory specific, or non-parallel, way, and the results are consistent with the hypothesis that concurrent tasks interfere with each other if they demand activation of the same part of cortex.

show abstract

Dividing attention within and between hemispheres: Testing a multiple resources approach to limited-capacity information processing.

Cited by 119 publications

References 27 publications

Comprehensive presurgical functional MRI language evaluation in adult patients with epilepsy

Comprehensive presurgical functional MRI language evaluation in adult patients with epilepsy

Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference.

Concurrent performance of two working memory tasks: potential mechanisms of interference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About