Task coordination between and within sensory modalities: Effects on distraction

Abstract

Load theory predictions for the effects of task coordination between and within sensory modalities (vision and hearing or vision only) on the level of distraction were tested. Response competition effects in a visual flanker task when it was coordinated with an auditory discrimination task (between-modality conditions) or a visual discrimination task (within-modality conditions) were compared with single-task conditions. In the between-modality conditions, response competition effects were greater in the two-(vs. single-) task conditions irrespective of the level of discrimination task difficulty. In the within-modality conditions, response competition effects were greater in the two-task (vs. single-task) conditions only when these involved a more difficult visual discrimination task. The results provided support for the load theory prediction that executive control load leads to greater distractor interference while highlighting the effects of task modality.

The neuroergonomic evaluation of human machine interface design in air traffic control using behavioral and EEG/ERP measures

“…Indeed, according to perceptual load theory [1][2][3], tasks involving high perceptual load can consume most of attentional capacity, leaving little remaining for processing information that is not directly related to the focal task, such as unexpected alarms [4][5][6][7]. In this sense, several researches have shown that attentional resources are shared between vision and hearing [8][9][10][11]. Some authors also postulate that tasks with high cognitive load (e.g., load in working memory) can lead to a reduced openness to additional stimuli such as auditory distractors [12][13][14].…”

The role of perceptual load in object recognition.

“…A replication of the load effects with such a design would allow us to rule out any alternative accounts in terms of potential strategy differences in the two conditions of perceptual load. This same approach has been adopted in several previous studies (Brand-D’Abrescia & Lavie, 2007; Cartwright-Finch & Lavie, 2007; Lavie & Cox, 1997; Lavie & Fox, 2000; Theeuwes, Kramer, & Belopolsky, 2004), each successfully ruling out differential strategies as an alternative explanation of the perceptual load effect. Nevertheless, it seemed desirable to establish that such alternative accounts cannot explain the effect of perceptual load on object recognition found here.…”

Temperature Dependency in Motor Skill Learning

“…There are two explanations why cold-trained individuals tested in hot conditions demonstrated a loss of performance accuracy and consistency when provided with concurrent feedback. First, these individuals now faced a novel task situation in which external feedback, which had been predominantly relied on during training, and intrinsic sensory information, undiminished under hot test conditions, were both present during force specification, resulting in an increased load on executive control (Brand-D'Abrescia & Lavie, 2008) and competition between intrinsic and extrinsic sensory sources for attention (Scheidt, Lillis, & Emerson, 2010;Seizova-Cajic & Azzi, 2010). Alternatively, performance might have declined because cold-trained individuals had learned to use concurrent feedback in a manner that was calibrated specific to the influence of cold on force production mechanisms.…”