Biomedical subjects

Eric Ruthruff

Publications and source records attributed to Eric Ruthruff.

15 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference.

Recent debate regarding dual-task performance has focused on whether costs result from limitations in central capacity, and whether central operations can be performed in parallel. While these questions are controversial, the dominant models of dual-task performance share the assumption that central operations are generic--that is, their interactions are independent of stimulus and response modalities. To examine these issues, we conducted a series of dual-task experiments with different input and output modality pairings. One condition combined a visual-manual task with an auditory-vocal task, and the other condition reversed the input-output pairings, combining a visual-vocal task with an auditory-manual task. Input/output modality pairings proved to be a key factor; throughout practice, dual-task costs were generally more than twice as large with visual-vocal/auditory-manual tasks than with the opposite arrangement of modalities (Experiments 1 and 2). These differences could be explained neither by competition for peripheral resources nor by differences in single-task response times (Experiment 3). Moreover, the persistent dual-task costs did not appear to stem from a central bottleneck. Contrary to the dominant models of dual-task performance, we propose that central interference between tasks depends not just on the duration of central operations, nor just strategic adaptation, but also on the content of those operations. Implications for structural and strategic accounts of dual-task interference are discussed.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Visual word recognition without central attention: evidence for greater automaticity with advancing age.

The present experiments examined the automaticity of word recognition. The authors examined whether people can recognize words while central attention is devoted to another task and how this ability changes across the life span. In Experiment 1, a lexical decision Task 2 was combined with either an auditory or a visual Task 1. Regardless of the Task 1 modality, Task 2 word recognition proceeded in parallel with Task 1 central operations for older adults but not for younger adults. This is a rare example of improved cognitive processing with advancing age. When Task 2 was nonlexical (Experiment 2), however, there was no evidence for greater parallel processing for older adults. Thus, the processing advantage appears to be restricted to lexical processes. The authors conclude that greater cumulative experience with lexical processing leads to greater automaticity, allowing older adults to more efficiently perform this stage in parallel with another task.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

On the difficulty of task switching: assessing the role of task-set inhibition.

This study assessed whether or not the difficulty of task switching stems from previous inhibition of the task set. A predictable sequence of univalent stimuli (affording performance of one active task) and bivalent stimuli (affording performance of two tasks) was used in two experiments. Experiment 1 used an alternating-runs paradigm (AABB) and Experiment 2 used a strictly alternating sequence (ABAB). The critical variable was whether the incentive for task-set inhibition was strong (on bivalent trials) or weak (on univalent trials). The question was whether it would be more difficult to switch to a task that previously needed to be inhibited than to a task that did not need to be inhibited. This pattern was not observed in either experiment. Thus, the data provide no evidence that task switching is difficult because of the need to overcome recent task-set inhibition.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

What causes residual dual-task interference after practice?

Practice can dramatically reduce dual-task interference, but typically does not eliminate interference entirely. Residual interference after practice is especially large with certain non-preferred modality pairings (e.g., auditory-manual and visual-vocal). Does this residual interference imply the existence of a persistent central-processing bottleneck? To address this question, we transferred participants with previous dual-task practice to a psychological refractory period design. Although we observed residual dual-task costs in all four experiments, there was no evidence for a bottleneck, even with non-preferred modality pairings. We conclude that practice can eliminate the bottleneck limitation, but performance is still subject to other sources of interference, such as competition between central codes of the two tasks.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck.

The present experiment examined the effects of input/output modality pairings on dual-task performance using the psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure. Four groups of participants performed two tasks composed of the same sets of inputs (visual and auditory) and the same sets of outputs (manual and vocal), but with different input/output modality pairings. Whereas modality pairings had only small effects on single-task reaction times, they had large effects on dual-task reaction times. The modality pairing effect cannot stem from differences in the difficulty of stimulus classification or response execution, because these task demands were the same across groups. The effect also does not appear to result from changes in stimulus-response compatibility. The present findings suggest dual-task interference arises not only from postponement of central operations (due to a central bottleneck), but also from a slowing of central operations whose magnitude is sensitive to the input/output modality pairings.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Dual-task performance with ideomotor-compatible tasks: is the central processing bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus?

The present study examined whether the central bottleneck, assumed to be primarily responsible for the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect, is intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus with ideomotor (IM)-compatible tasks. In 4 experiments, factorial combinations of IM- and non-IM-compatible tasks were used for Task 1 and Task 2. All experiments showed substantial PRP effects, with a strong dependency between Task 1 and Task 2 response times. These findings, along with model-based simulations, indicate that the processing bottleneck was not bypassed, even with two IM-compatible tasks. Nevertheless, systematic changes in the PRP and correspondence effects across experiments suggest that IM compatibility shifted the locus of the bottleneck. The findings favor an engage-bottleneck-later hypothesis, whereby parallelism between tasks occurs deeper into the processing stream for IM- than for non-IM-compatible tasks, without the bottleneck being actually eliminated.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Confirming and disconfirming theories about ideomotor compatibility in dual-task performance: a reply to Greenwald (2005).

Because small dual-task costs with ideomotor-compatible tasks do not necessarily indicate the absence of a bottleneck, M.-C. Lien, R. S. McCann, E. Ruthruff, and R. W. Proctor (2005) considered additional sources of evidence regarding bottleneck bypass. This evidence argued against complete bottleneck bypass and, instead, supported an engage-bottleneck-later model in which early bottleneck substages are bypassed but late substages are not. A. G. Greenwald (2005), however, contended that M.-C. Lien et al. did not use the procedures needed to produce complete bottleneck bypass and that a complete bottleneck bypass hypothesis, combined with additional assumptions, could explain their data. The authors contend that this disagreement stems from Greenwald's focus on confirming predictions of complete bottleneck bypass (small dual-task costs) without disconfirming predictions of bottleneck presence. In particular, Greenwald neglects to consider the possibility that a latent bottleneck limitation could also produce small dual-task costs.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

On the limits of advance preparation for a task switch: do people prepare all the task some of the time or some of the task all the time?

This study investigated the nature of advance preparation for a task switch, testing 2 key assumptions of R. De Jong's (2000) failure-to-engage theory: (a) Task-switch preparation is all-or-none, and (b) preparation failures stem from nonutilization of available control capabilities. In 3 experiments, switch costs varied dramatically across individual stimulus-response (S-R) pairs of the tasks-virtually absent for 1 pair but large for others. These findings indicate that, across trials, task preparation was not all-or-none but, rather, consistently partial (full preparation for some S-R pairs but not others). In other words, people do not prepare all of the task some of the time, they prepare some of the task all of the time. Experiments 2 and 3 produced substantial switch costs even though time deadlines provided strong incentives for optimal advance preparation. Thus, there was no evidence that people have a latent capability to fully prepare for a task switch.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2005

Redundancy gain and coactivation in bimodal detection: evidence for the preservation of coactive processing in older adults.

Previous investigations of adult age differences in the redundant signals effect suggest that both older and younger adults benefit from the presentation of redundant information. However, age deficits in divided attention may cause older adults to process redundant information in a different manner. In the present experiment, we tested between two competing explanations for the redundant signals effect: separate activation and coactivation. To investigate this issue, we used a bimodal detection task in which the auditory signal was a 1000-Hz tone and the visual signal was an asterisk. Both age groups showed significant violations of Miller's race model inequality, providing evidence for coactivation. These results suggest that, despite age-related deficits in divided attention, the ability to coactivate information from bimodal signals is spared with increased age.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

How does practice reduce dual-task interference: integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening?

The present study assessed three hypotheses of how practice reduces dual-task interference: Practice teaches participants to efficiently integrate performance of a task pair; practice promotes automatization of individual tasks, allowing the central bottleneck to be bypassed; practice leaves the bottleneck intact but shorter in duration. These hypotheses were tested in two transfer-of-training experiments. Participants received one of three training types (Task 1 only, or Task 2 only, or dual-task), followed by dual-task test sessions. Practice effects in Experiment 1 (Task 1: auditory-vocal; Task 2: visual-manual) were fully explained by the intact bottleneck hypothesis, without task integration or automatization. This hypothesis also accounted well for the majority of participants when the task order was reversed (Experiment 2). In this case, however, there were multiple indicators that several participants had succeeded in eliminating the bottleneck by automatizing one or both tasks. Neither experiment provided any evidence that practice promotes efficient task integration.

Automatism↗

PubMed2004

Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): still no identification without attention.

According to D. E. Broadbent's (1958) selective filter theory, people do not process unattended stimuli beyond the analysis of basic physical properties. This theory was later rejected on the basis of numerous findings that people identify irrelevant (and supposedly unattended) stimuli. A careful review of this evidence, however, reveals strong reasons to doubt that these irrelevant stimuli were in fact unattended. This review exposed a clear need for new experiments with tight control over the locus of attention. The authors present 5 such experiments using a priming paradigm. When steps were taken to ensure that irrelevant stimuli were not attended, these stimuli produced no priming effects. Hence, the authors found no evidence that unattended stimuli can be identified. The results support a modern version of Broadbent's selective theory, updated to reflect recent research advances.

Attention↗

PubMed2004

Task switching in a hierarchical task structure: evidence for the fragility of the task repetition benefit.

This study examined how task switching is affected by hierarchical task organization. Traditional task-switching studies, which use a constant temporal and spatial distance between each task element (defined as a stimulus requiring a response), promote a flat task structure. Using this approach, Experiment 1 revealed a large switch cost of 238 ms. In Experiments 2-5, adjacent task elements were grouped temporally and/or spatially (forming an ensemble) to create a hierarchical task organization. Results indicate that the effect of switching at the ensemble level dominated the effect of switching at the element level. Experiments 6 and 7, using an ensemble of 3 task elements, revealed that the element-level switch cost was virtually absent between ensembles but was large within an ensemble. The authors conclude that the element-level task repetition benefit is fragile and can be eliminated in a hierarchical task organization.

Humans↗

PubMed2003

Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?

Practice can, in some cases, largely eliminate measured dual-task interference. Does this absence of interference indicate the absence of a processing bottleneck (defined as an inability to carry out certain stages in parallel)? The authors show that a bottleneck need not produce any observable interference, provided that there is no temporal overlap in the demand for bottleneck stages on the 2 tasks. Such a "latent" bottleneck is especially likely after practice, when central stages are short. The authors provide new evidence that a latent bottleneck occurred for a participant who produced no interference in M. Van Selst, E. Ruthruff, and J. C. Johnston (1999). These findings demonstrate that the absence of dual-task interference does not necessarily indicate the absence of a processing bottleneck.

Attention↗

PubMed2003

Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: graded capacity sharing or central postponement?

Most studies using the psychological refractory period (PRP) design suggest that dual-task performance is limited by a central bottleneck. Because subjects are usually told to emphasize Task 1, however, the bottleneck might reflect a strategic choice rather than a structural limitation. To evaluate the possibility that central operations can proceed in parallel, albeit with capacity limitations, we conducted two dual-task experiments with equal task emphasis. In both experiments, subjects tended to either group responses together or respond to one task well before the other. In addition, stimulus-response compatibility effects were roughly constant across stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). At the short SOA, compatibility effects also carried over onto response times for the other task. This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with the possibility that subjects share capacity roughly equally between simultaneous central operations. However, this pattern is consistent with the existence of a structural central bottleneck.

Auditory Perception↗

PubMed2002

Repetition blindness has a perceptual locus: evidence from online processing of targets in RSVP streams.

Four experiments tested whether repetition blindness (RB; reduced accuracy reporting repetitions of briefly displayed items) is a perceptual or a memory-recall phenomenon. RB was measured in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) streams, with the task altered to reduce memory demands. In Experiment 1 only the number of targets (1 vs. 2) was reported, eliminating the need to remember target identities. Experiment 2 segregated repeated and nonrepeated targets into separate blocks to reduce bias against repeated targets. Experiments 3 and 4 required immediate "online" buttonpress responses to targets as they occurred. All 4 experiments showed very strong RB. Furthermore, the online response data showed clearly that the 2nd of the repeated targets is the one missed. The present results show that in the RSVP paradigm, RB occurs online during initial stimulus encoding and decision making. The authors argue that RB is indeed a perceptual phenomenon.

Blindness↗