PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Refractory Period, Psychological”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?

Can people learn to perform two tasks at the same time without interference? To answer this question, the authors trained 6 participants for 36 sessions in a Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) experiment, where Task 1 required a speeded vocal response to an auditory stimulus and Task 2 required a speeded manual response to a visual stimulus. The large PRP effect found initially (353 ms in Session 1) shrank to only about 40 ms over the course of practice, disappearing entirely for 1 of the 6 participants. This reduction in the PRP effect with practice is considerably larger than has been previously reported. The obtained pattern of factor interactions between stimulus onset asynchrony and each of three task difficulty manipulations (Task 1 judgment difficulty, Task 2 stimulus contrast, and Task 2 mapping compatibility) supports a postponement (bottleneck) account of dual-task interference, both before and after practice.

Humans↗
PubMed2005

Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies.

Three experiments using psychological refractory period (PRP) tasks documented backward crosstalk effects in which the nature of the second-task response influenced the first-task response latencies. Such effects are difficult to explain within currently popular bottleneck models, according to which second-task response selection does not begin until first-task response selection has finished. In Experiments 1 and 2, the first of the PRP tasks required a choice reaction time (RT) response, whereas the second task required a go/no-go decision. Task 1 responses were faster when the second task required a go response than when it required a no-go response. Experiment 3 showed that Task 1 RTs were also influenced by the complexity of second-task responses. These backward crosstalk effects indicate that significant second-task processing is carried out in time to influence first-task responses and thus challenge strictly serial bottleneck models.

Attention↗
PubMed2003

Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm.

The authors examined the role of online order control in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. In the first 2 experiments, participants switched between color-letter and letter-color orders so that subtask order was isolated as the only element being switched. The results indicated that order switching impaired the 2 PRP responses and modulated the PRP effect. Importantly, these effects were reduced by advance preparation, demonstrating that order representation was activated before the subtasks themselves. Preparation for subtask order did not reflect preparation for hand order, as shown in Experiment 3. In addition, there was no evidence that subtask order information dissipated between trials. The relevance of the results to theories of the PRP paradigm and task switching is discussed.

Color Perception↗
PubMed1998

The psychological refractory period effect following callosotomy: uncoupling of lateralized response codes.

A callosotomy patient was tested in 2 dual-task experiments requiring successive speeded responses to lateralized stimuli. The patient showed a robust psychological refractory period (PRP) effect. Three aspects of the data indicate that, unlike for the control participants, the PRP effect for the split-brain patient should not be attributed to a response selection bottleneck. First, the patient did not show an increase in reaction time (RT) when the 2 tasks required responses from a common output system compared with when different output systems were used. Second, inconsistent stimulus-response mappings for the 2 tasks increased RTs for the control participants but had minimal effect on the performance of the split-brain patient. Third, the consistency manipulation was underadditive with stimulus onset asynchrony but was additive or overadditive for the normal participants. These results suggest that the persistent PRP effect following callosotomy should be attributed to a bottleneck associated with response initiation, a strategy adopted to comply with the task demands, or a combination of these factors.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection.

The purpose of this paper was to provide insight into the nature of response selection by reviewing the literature on stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects and the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect individually and jointly. The empirical findings and theoretical explanations of SRC effects that have been studied within a single-task context suggest that there are two response-selection routes-automatic activation and intentional translation. In contrast, all major PRP models reviewed in this paper have treated response selection as a single processing stage. In particular, the response-selection bottleneck (RSB) model assumes that the processing of Task 1 and Task 2 comprises two separate streams and that the PRP effect is due to a bottleneck located at response selection. Yet, considerable evidence from studies of SRC in the PRP paradigm shows that the processing of the two tasks is more interactive than is suggested by the RSB model and by most other models of the PRP effect. The major implication drawn from the studies of SRC effects in the PRP context is that response activation is a distinct process from final response selection. Response activation is based on both long-term and short-term task-defined S-R associations and occurs automatically and in parallel for the two tasks. The final response selection is an intentional act required even for highly compatible and practiced tasks and is restricted to processing one task at a time. Investigations of SRC effects and response-selection variables in dual-task contexts should be conducted more systematically because they provide significant insight into the nature of response-selection mechanisms.

Association Learning↗
PubMed1998

The psychological refractory period: evidence for age differences in attentional time-sharing.

The authors report 2 psychological refractory period (PRP) experiments in which the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between Task 1 and Task 2 was 150 ms, 250 ms, 600 ms, and 1,100 ms for both younger and older adults. H. Pashler's (1994a) response-selection bottleneck theory predicts that SOA manipulations should not affect Task 1 performance, but that reaction time (RT) for Task 2 should increase as the SOA between the 2 tasks decreases (i.e., the classical PRP effect). In Experiment 1 (Task 1 = tone discrimination, Task 2 = dot location), older adults showed a larger PRP effect than younger adults did, although Task 1 RT was affected by SOA, suggesting that participants were grouping their responses on some trials. That is, participants were holding their response for Task 1 until they had completed processing Task 2, and then they responded to both tasks almost simultaneously. However, a subset of participants (11 younger adults and 11 older adults) who showed no evidence of response grouping on Task 1 continued to show a larger PRP effect for older adults on Task 2. In Experiment 2 (Task 1 = dot location, Task 2 = simultaneous letter matching), older adults continued to show a larger PRP effect than younger adults for Task 2, and Task 1 performance was unaffected by SOA. Consequently, these experiments provide evidence that older adults (relative to younger adults) exhibit a decrement in time-sharing at the response-selection stage of processing. These results suggest that attentional time-sharing needs to be added to the list of topics examined in aging research on varieties of attention.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Aging and the psychological refractory period: task-coordination strategies in young and old adults.

The apparently deleterious effect of aging on dual-task performance is well established, but there is little agreement about the source of this effect. Studies of the psychological refractory period (PRP) indicate that young adults can flexibly control dual-task performance through task-coordination strategies. Thus, the performance of older adults might differ from young adults because older adults use different task-coordination strategies. To test this hypothesis, the executive-process interactive control (EPIC) architecture was applied to quantify the reaction time data from two PRP experiments conducted with young (age 18-26) and older (age 60-70) adults. The results show that participants' ability to coordinate the processing of two tasks did not decline with age. However, dual-task time costs were greater in the older adults. Three sources for this increase were found: generalized slowing, process-specific slowing, and the use of more cautious task-coordination strategies by the older adults.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm.

Three experiments examined the effects of task switching and response correspondence in a psychological refractory period paradigm. A letter task (vowel-consonant) and a digit task (odd-even) were combined to form 4 possible dual-task pairs in each trial: letter-letter, letter-digit, digit-digit, and digit-letter. Foreknowledge of task transition (repeat or switch) and task identity (letter or digit) was varied across experiments: no foreknowledge in Experiment 1, partial foreknowledge (task transition only) in Experiment 2, and full foreknowledge in Experiment 3. For all experiments, the switch cost for Task 2 was additive with stimulus onset asynchrony, and the response-correspondence effect for Task 2 was numerically smaller in the switch condition than in the repeat condition. These outcomes suggest that reconfiguration for Task 2 takes place after the central processing of Task 1 and that the crosstalk correspondence effect is due to response activation by way of stimulus-response associations.

Cognition↗
PubMed2006

The locus of temporal preparation effects: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm.

In reaction time (RT) tasks, responses are especially fast when participants can anticipate the onset of an imperative response signal. Although this RT facilitation is commonly attributed to temporal preparation, it is unclear whether this preparation shortens the duration of early or late processes. We used the effect propagation property of the psychological refractory period paradigm to localize the effect of temporal preparation. Manipulation of temporal uncertainty affected the RT of Task 1, regardless of the level of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). Consistent with the prediction of an early locus of temporal preparation, this effect propagated completely to the RT of Task 2 at short SOAs, but propagation diminished virtually to zero at long SOAs.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Central interference in driving: is there any stopping the psychological refractory period?

Participants attempted to perform two tasks concurrently during simulated driving. In the choice task, they responded either manually or vocally to the number of times a visual or auditory stimulus occurred; in the braking task, they depressed a brake pedal in response to the lead car's brake lights. The time delay between the onset of the tasks' stimuli, or stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), was varied. The tasks were differentially affected by the manipulations. Brake reaction times increased as SOA was reduced, showing the psychological refractory period effect, whereas the choice task showed large effects of the stimulus and response modalities but only a small effect of SOA. These results demonstrate that a well-practiced "simple" task such as vehicle braking is subject to dual-task slowing and extend the generality of the central-bottleneck model.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed2001

Serial modules in parallel: the psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing.

The authors describe ACT-R/perceptual-motor (ACT-R/PM), an integrated theory of cognition, perception, and action that consists of the ACT-R production system and a set of perceptual-motor modules. Each module (including cognition) is essentially serial, but modules run in parallel with one another. ACT-R/PM can model simple dual tasks such as the psychological refractory period (PRP), including subtle results previously explained with executive process interactive control (EPIC, D. E. Meyer & D. E. Kieras, 1997a). The central difference between the theories is that EPIC's productions can fire in parallel, whereas in ACT-R/PM, they are serial. Results from three PRP-like experiments with more demanding cognitive requirements indicate that cognitive processing for the 2 tasks need not overlap. ACT-R's activation-based retrieval processes are critical in accounting for the timing of these tasks and for explaining the dual-task performance decrement.

Attention↗
PubMed2003

The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm.

In target detection tasks, responses are faster when displays have 2 targets (redundant-targets effect; RTE) and slower when they have no targets (nontargets effect; NTE) relative to displays with a single target. The psychological refractory period paradigm was used to localize these effects. In Experiment 1, participants classified tones as high or low and then classified letters as targets or nontargets after a short or long stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). The magnitudes of the RTE and NTE did not depend on SOA. In Experiment 2, the order of the tasks was reversed, and at short SOAs the RTE and NTE had similar magnitudes for both tone discrimination and target detection responses. These findings suggest that the RTE and NTE arise during response selection. Interactive effects of tone pitch with the number and type of target features were also observed, and these were tentatively interpreted as synesthetic effects.

Humans↗
PubMed2002

All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon.

The goal of the present experiment was to test the predictions of Central Bottleneck and Central Capacity Sharing models. According to the Central Bottleneck model, dual task interference, as observed in the PRP paradigm, is caused by an all-or-none bottleneck in information processing. The Central Capacity Sharing model postulates that dual task interference is caused by a capacity limited process that can allocate capacity in a graded fashion. The Central Bottleneck model predicts no change in RT1 with decreasing SOA, whereas the Central Capacity Sharing model predicts that RT1 will increase with decreasing SOA and that the slope of the RT1 SOA effect will depend upon the difficulty of task 2. Subjects were required to perform a tone pitch judgement and shape-matching task in rapid succession. Task order was randomized and the SOA between the first and second stimulus varied from 50 to 1250 ms. Results from this experiment favour the Central Capacity Sharing model. The results were then run through simulations of both the Central Bottleneck and Central Capacity Sharing models. Results from the simulations also favoured the Central Capacity Sharing model. As the difficulty of the second task increased, more capacity was allocated to it, confirming the prediction that as task 2 difficulty increases, the RT1 SOA slope increases. The proportion of capacity allocated to the first task varied from.78 to.91 indicating that capacity can be allocated in a graded fashion.

Analysis of Variance↗