TY - JOUR
T1 - Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions.
AU - Ulrich, R
AU - Ruiz Fernandez, S
AU - Jentzsch, Ines
AU - Rolke, B
AU - Schroeter, H
AU - Leuthold, H
N1 - This paper results from an international collaboration with University of Tuebingen, Germany; and promises high impact. Innovation: The paper shows that dual-task interference is not restricted to central processing limitations but also involves limitations at late motoric stages. We introduce a new devise enabling us to experimentally manipulate the demands of motor processes. High prestige APS journal, IF:3.6.
PY - 2006/9
Y1 - 2006/9
N2 - The standard bottleneck model of the psychological refractory period (PRP) assumes that the selection of the second response is postponed until the first response has been selected. Accordingly, dual-task interference is attributed to a single central-processing bottleneck involving decision and response selection, but not the execution of the response itself. In order to critically examine the assumption that response execution is not part of this bottleneck, we systematically manipulated the temporal demand for executing the first response in a classical PRP paradigm. Contrary to the assumption of the standard bottleneck model, this manipulation affected the reaction time for Task 2. Specifically, reaction time for Task 2 increased with execution time for Task 1. This carryover effect from Task 1 to Task 2 provides evidence for the notion that response execution can be part of the processing bottleneck.
AB - The standard bottleneck model of the psychological refractory period (PRP) assumes that the selection of the second response is postponed until the first response has been selected. Accordingly, dual-task interference is attributed to a single central-processing bottleneck involving decision and response selection, but not the execution of the response itself. In order to critically examine the assumption that response execution is not part of this bottleneck, we systematically manipulated the temporal demand for executing the first response in a classical PRP paradigm. Contrary to the assumption of the standard bottleneck model, this manipulation affected the reaction time for Task 2. Specifically, reaction time for Task 2 increased with execution time for Task 1. This carryover effect from Task 1 to Task 2 provides evidence for the notion that response execution can be part of the processing bottleneck.
KW - PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY-PERIOD
KW - MULTIPLE BOTTLENECKS
KW - CENTRAL POSTPONEMENT
KW - OVERLAPPING TASKS
KW - INTERFERENCE
KW - PERFORMANCE
KW - MODEL
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748694328&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01783.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01783.x
M3 - Article
SN - 0956-7976
VL - 17
SP - 788
EP - 793
JO - Psychological Science
JF - Psychological Science
IS - 9
ER -