On Separability of and Interference Between Tracking Dimensions in Dual-Axis Tracking

Navon, David; Gopher, Daniel; Chillag, Nela; Spitz, Gabriel

doi:10.1080/00222895.1984.10735327

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern of data captures the essence of the previous results, although it is not clear how one should interpret points that fall along the dotted lines, where the instructions to pay unequal attention to the two channels indicate no loss on the 80% channel but a lowering of performance on the 20% channel. This problem has been seen before (Gopher & Navon, 1980;Navon, Gopher, Chillag, & Spitz, 1984;Regan, 1982;Schneider & Fisk, 1982). Perhaps points along the arms of the square AOC represent a strategy in which the subject interprets the unbalanced instruction to mean that performance "should be" less on the low-attention channel and responds to it inefficiently, using less than the available capacity (Navon, 1985).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divided attention between simultaneous auditory and visual signals

Bonnel

Haftser

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past studies of simultaneous attention to pairs of visual stimuli have used the "dual-task" paradigm to show that identification of the direction of a change in luminance, whether incremental or decremental, is "capacity-limited," while simple detection of these changes is governed by "capacity-free" processes. On the basis of that finding, it has been suggested that the contrast between identification and detection reflects different processes in the sensory periphery, namely the responses of magno-and parvocellular receptors. The present study questions that assertion and investigates the contribution of central processing in resource limitation by applying the dual task to a situation in which one stimulus is auditory and one is visual. The results are much the same as before, with identification demonstrating the tradeoff in performance generally attributed to a limited capacity but detection showing no loss compared with single-task controls. This implies that limitations on resources operate at a centrallevel of processing rather than in the auditory and visual peripheries.In divided attention, performance limitations depend on a variety of features of both the stimulus and the response (see Duncan, 1980, andHirst, 1986, for review). Recently, Bonnel, Stein, and Bertucci (1992) showed that limitations may also depend on the nature of the psychophysical paradigm. They used the dual-task methodology to present concurrent visual stimuli in two paradigms, "detection" and "identification." Subjects responded separately to simultaneous side-by-side visual channels. In detection, signals were increments in luminance S(+) that could be added to each channel independently. In identification, signals were either increments S(+) or decrements S( -) that were added to each stimulus independently. Thus, in detection, subjects monitored for the presence of signals whereas in identification they identified the signs ofsignals. Results indicated no effect ofconcurrence when the task was to detect, but clear deficits when the task was to identify.Greater understanding of divided attention in the dual task is revealed by "attention-operating characteristics" (AOCs), which plot joint performance as a function of attentional instructions (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divided attention between simultaneous auditory and visual signals

Bonnel

Haftser

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A related theory of attentional interference is multiple resource theory, according to which different tasks draw on different resources (e.g., verbal vs. spatial WM), and thus, only tasks that require the same resources should interfere with each otherʼs processing (Navon, Gopher, Chillag, & Spitz, 1984;Gopher, Brickner, & Navon, 1982;Isreal, Chesney, Wickens, & Donchin, 1980;Wickens & Kessel, 1980). In a series of dual-task experiments, Kim, Kim, and Chun (2005)) have, for example, shown that limited-capacity resources can be tied up in a WM task and are subsequently unavailable to the processing of either targets or distractors in a Stroop task (Stroop, 1935).…”

Section: Effects Of Different Types Of Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Working Memory Load Impairs Visual Ventral Stream Processing: Toward a Unified Model of Attentional Load

Klemen

Büchel

Bühler

et al. 2010

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

■ Attentional interference between tasks performed in parallel is known to have strong and often undesired effects. As yet, however, the mechanisms by which interference operates remain elusive. A better knowledge of these processes may facilitate our understanding of the effects of attention on human performance and the debilitating consequences that disruptions to attention can have. According to the load theory of cognitive control, processing of task-irrelevant stimuli is increased by attending in parallel to a relevant task with high cognitive demands. This is due to the relevant task engaging cognitive control resources that are, hence, unavailable to inhibit the processing of task-irrelevant stimuli. However, it has also been demonstrated that a variety of types of load (perceptual and emotional) can result in a reduction of the processing of taskirrelevant stimuli, suggesting a uniform effect of increased load irrespective of the type of load. In the present study, we concurrently presented a relevant auditory matching task [n-back working memory ( WM)] of low or high cognitive load (1-back or 2-back WM) and task-irrelevant images at one of three object visibility levels (0%, 50%, or 100%). fMRI activation during the processing of the task-irrelevant visual stimuli was measured in the lateral occipital cortex and found to be reduced under high, compared to low, WM load. In combination with previous findings, this result is suggestive of a more generalized load theory, whereby cognitive load, as well as other types of load (e.g., perceptual), can result in a reduction of the processing of taskirrelevant stimuli, in line with a uniform effect of increased load irrespective of the type of load. ■

show abstract

“…The hypothesis that concurrence is an option would be challenged, if it was shown that there was no evidence for concurrence even when concurrent processing was called for, namely when the performer had some reason for resorting to concurrent processing that outweighed its disadvantages. Concurrent processing might be preferable either when the tasks require sustained attention (e.g., retention in STM) or periodic monitoring (e.g., tracking) or when heavy time pressure makes queuing fatal to the accuracy of the postponed task (e.g., Gopher, Brickner, & Navon, 1982;Navon, Gopher, Chillag, & Spitz, 1984;Roldan, 1979;Sperling & Melchner, 1978;Tsang, Shaner, & Vidulich, 1995;reviews in Gopher, 1994;Gopher & Donchin, 1986;Wickens, 1984). However, advocates of the single-bottleneck notion have been expending most of their effort in demonstrating queuing in the overlapping tasks paradigm that does not call for concurrent processing.…”

Section: How Relevant Is the Paradigm Anyway?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion

Navon

Miller

2002

Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

341

359

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The model of a single central bottleneck for human information processing is critically examined. Most evidence cited in support of the model has been observed within the overlapping tasks paradigm. It is shown here that most findings obtained within that paradigm and that were used to support the model are also consistent with a simple resource model. The most prominent findings are the millisecondfor-millisecond slope at the left of the RT2-SOA curve, the high RT1-RT2 correlation, the additivity of the effects on RT2 of SOA and of the difficulty of selecting R2, and the washout of the effect of S2 discriminability on RT2 in a dual-task condition. In addition, the asymmetry of the effects of the dual-task requirement on RT1 and RT2 can be accounted for by the resource model provided that it assumes uneven allocation of resources, which is quite reasonable in view of the task asymmetry inherent in the demand characteristics of the paradigm. The same is true for two other findings that appear to support the single-bottleneck model-that in the dual-task condition, the demand of the first task affects equally RT1 and RT2 and that its effect on RT1 is the same as the corresponding effect in the singletask condition. Furthermore, the single-bottleneck model is hard to reconcile with a negative slope at the left of the RT1-SOA curve or a positive slope at the left of the IRI-SOA curve, unless augmented by ancillary assumptions that are yet to be substantiated. Representative data were fit by each of the models using its optimal set of parameters. Both models achieved quite good degrees of fit. It is further argued that since the overlapping tasks paradigm is heavily biased in favor of a speedy reaction to the stimulus that appears first, it is nonoptimal for testing the central bottleneck model. Finally, the bottleneck model is examined in terms of other scientific criteria.

show abstract

On Separability of and Interference Between Tracking Dimensions in Dual-Axis Tracking

Cited by 21 publications

References 7 publications

Divided attention between simultaneous auditory and visual signals

Divided attention between simultaneous auditory and visual signals

Auditory Working Memory Load Impairs Visual Ventral Stream Processing: Toward a Unified Model of Attentional Load

Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About