Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Apr 7:6:403.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00403. eCollection 2015.

On the importance of Task 1 and error performance measures in PRP dual-task studies

Affiliations

On the importance of Task 1 and error performance measures in PRP dual-task studies

Tilo Strobach et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

The psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm is a dominant research tool in the literature on dual-task performance. In this paradigm a first and second component task (i.e., Task 1 and Task 2) are presented with variable stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and priority to perform Task 1. The main indicator of dual-task impairment in PRP situations is an increasing Task 2-RT with decreasing SOAs. This impairment is typically explained with some task components being processed strictly sequentially in the context of the prominent central bottleneck theory. This assumption could implicitly suggest that processes of Task 1 are unaffected by Task 2 and bottleneck processing, i.e., decreasing SOAs do not increase reaction times (RTs) and error rates of the first task. The aim of the present review is to assess whether PRP dual-task studies included both RT and error data presentations and statistical analyses and whether studies including both data types (i.e., RTs and error rates) show data consistent with this assumption (i.e., decreasing SOAs and unaffected RTs and/or error rates in Task 1). This review demonstrates that, in contrast to RT presentations and analyses, error data is underrepresented in a substantial number of studies. Furthermore, a substantial number of studies with RT and error data showed a statistically significant impairment of Task 1 performance with decreasing SOA. Thus, these studies produced data that is not primarily consistent with the strong assumption that processes of Task 1 are unaffected by Task 2 and bottleneck processing in the context of PRP dual-task situations; this calls for a more careful report and analysis of Task 1 performance in PRP studies and for a more careful consideration of theories proposing additions to the bottleneck assumption, which are sufficiently general to explain Task 1 and Task 2 effects.

Keywords: PRP; capacity limitation; central bottleneck theory; dual tasks; error data; reaction times.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Illustration of performance patterns in the context of dual tasks of the Psychological Refractory Period type (note, that an increase at the y axis represents performance impairment and an increase at the x axis represents an increase in stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA). Panel (A): Task 1 and Task 2 performance according to the central bottleneck model. Panel (B): Task 1 and Task 2 performance according to less strict sequential interpretations of bottleneck models and impaired performance with decreasing SOA in both tasks.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

Appendix

    1. Allen P. A., Lien M., Murphy M. D., Sanders R. E., Judge K. S., McCann R. S. (2002). Age differences in overlapping-task performance: evidence for efficient parallel processing in older adults. Psychol. Aging 17, 505–519. 10.1037/0882-7974.17.3.505 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allen P. A., Ruthruff E., Elicker J. D., Lien M. (2009). Multisession, dual-task psychological refractory period practice benefits older and younger adults equally. Exp. Aging Res. 35, 369–399. 10.1080/03610730903175766 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allen P. A., Smith A. F., Vires-Collins H., Sperry S. (1998). The psychological refractory period: evidence for age differences in attentional time-sharing. Psychol. Aging 13, 218–229. 10.1037/0882-7974.13.2.218 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arnell K. M., Duncan J. (2002). Separate and shared sources of dual-task cost in stimulus identification and response selection. Cogn. Psychol. 44, 105–147. 10.1006/cogp.2001.0762 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arnell K. M., Helion A. M., Hurdelbrink J. A., Pasieka B. (2004). Dissociating sources of dual-task interference using human electrophysiology. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 11, 77–83. 10.3758/BF03206464 - DOI - PubMed

References

    1. Allen P. A., Smith A. F., Vires-Collins H., Sperry S. (1998). The psychological refractory period: evidence for age differences in attentional time-sharing. Psychol. Aging 13, 218–229. - PubMed
    1. Arnell K. M., Duncan J. (2002). Separate and shared sources of dual-task cost in stimulus identification and response selection. Cogn. Psychol. 44, 105–147. 10.1006/cogp.2001.0762 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Band G. P. H., van Nes F. T. (2006). Reconfiguration and the bottleneck: does task switching affect the refractory-period effect? Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 18, 593–623 10.1080/09541440500423244 - DOI
    1. Boot W. R., Blakely D. P., Simons D. J. (2011). Do action video games improve perception and cognition? Front. Psychol. 2:266. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00226 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Borger R. (1963). The refractory period and serial choice-reactions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 15, 1–12 10.1080/17470216308416546 - DOI