Resource scarcity and outcome conflict in time-sharing performance

Tsang, Pamela S.; Shaner, Tonya L.

doi:10.3758/bf03213061

Cited by 29 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a task whose processing overarouses the system (Navon, 1984) need not be similar to another task that suffers the consequences of that overarousal. Neither does outcome conflict necessarily entail switching between tasks to avoid it, as suggested by Tsang, Shaner, and Vidulich (1995). Subjects have other options-either to suffer the consequences or to lower the rate of concurrent processing to diminish cross-talk (Kinsbourne, 1981).…”

Section: Alternative Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Navon

Miller

2002

Cognitive Psychology

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

Section: Alternative Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

341

359

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the visual search task is not affected by concurrent timing, timing is disrupted by visual search, perhaps because both tasks rely on perceptual/central resources. In fact, asymmetry in dual-task interference is not unusual (see Tsang, Shaner, & Vidulich, 1995;Wickens, 1980, pp. 244-249).…”

Section: Perceptual/cognitive Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional resources in timing: Interference effects in concurrent temporal and nontemporal working memory tasks

Brown

1997

Perception & Psychophysics

525

504

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined interference effects in concurrent temporal and nontemporal tasks. The timing task in each experiment required subjects to generate a series of 2-or 5-sec temporal productions. The nontemporal tasks were pursuit rotor tracking (Experiment 1), visual search (Experiment 2), and mental arithmetic (Experiment 3). Each nontemporal task had two levels of difficulty. All tasks were performed under both single-and dual-task conditions. A simple attentional allocation model predicts bidirectional interference between concurrent tasks. The main results showed the classic interference effect in timing. That is, the concurrent nontemporal tasks caused temporal productions to become longer (longer productions represent a shortening of perceived time) and/or more variable than did timing-onlyconditions. In general, the difficult version of each nontemporal task disrupted timing more than the easier version. The timing data also exhibited a serial lengthening effect, in which temporal productions became longer across trials. Nontemporal task performance showed a mixed pattern. Tracking and visual search were essentially unaffected by the addition of a timing task, whereas mental arithmetic was disrupted by concurrent timing. These results call for a modification of the attentional allocation model to incorporate the idea of specialized processing resources. Two major theoretical frameworks-multiple resource theory and the working memory model-are critically evaluated with respect to the resource demands of timing and temporal/nontemporal dual-task performance.The interference effect is one of the most consistent findings in the time perception literature. The effect refers to a disruption in timing that occurs when subjects are required to perform some demanding nontemporal task during the interval. The usual result is that perceived time becomes shortened. Because of differences between time judgment methods (see below), this effect is manifested as either shorter verbal estimations and reproductions or longer temporal productions. Time judgments also may display more error and variability under nontemporal task conditions than under control (no-task) conditions. This paper explores the nature of this effect, with special reference to the role ofattentional processes in timing. First, a review of the empirical and theoretical work in the area is presented, and issues involving mutual interference between temporal and nontemporal processing are raised. Three experiments designed to address these issues are reported. The paper concludes with a discussion centering on the relationship between timing and current models of attentional resources.

show abstract

“…This pattern implies that the two tasks are less related. Resource theory usually attributes asymmetrical interference to a situation involving shared resources that are differentially important for the two tasks (Navon & Gopher, 1980;Tsang, Shaner, & Vidulich, 1995;Wickens, 1980). One review revealed that whereas most tracking manipulations affect concurrent shadowing or mental arithmetic tasks, most manipulations of shadowing or arithmetic difficulty fail to affect tracking performance (Wickens, 1980).…”

Section: University Of Southern Maine Portland Mainementioning

confidence: 99%