Elsevier

Cognitive Psychology

Volume 21, Issue 4, October 1989, Pages 469-514
Cognitive Psychology

Dissociations and dependencies between speed and accuracy: Evidence for a two-component theory of divided attention in simple tasks

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90016-9Get rights and content

Abstract

Previous work has amply demonstrated divided attention “costs” both in single-task multistimulus visual processing and in performance of multiple simple tasks; however, the relationship between the two has not been clarified. This article postulates two distinct causes: (1) visual processes that commence without delays and proceed simultaneously, but show lingering mutual interference dependent upon complexity, and (2) discrete queueing of the response selection stage. The first has resource-like properties, while the second has bottleneck-like properties. Either or both can generate performance costs observed in any particular situation, accounting for a variety of previous results. To test this theory, the effects of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) on accuracy and speed in performing dual choice tasks were examined. The first two experiments involved a choice response to a tone as a first task, and a second task requiring complex perceptual decisions (digit identification or conjunction search) with masked displays and unspeeded second responses. Reducing the SOA had negligible effects upon second-task accuracy, and performance in the two tasks was virtually independent. However, when speeded manual (Exp. 3) or vocal (Exp. 4) responses were required on the same second task, dramatic interference was observed, with strong positive dependencies between reaction times (RTs) on the two tasks. When both tasks involved complex visual displays, SOA reductions produced dramatic interference, but no dependencies between performance, whether the first task involved a speeded (Exp. 5) or unspeeded (Exp. 6) response. The results reject pure late-selection accounts and general capacity sharing models, and support the two-component theory. They also suggest that standard use of the term “attention,” suggesting a single resource or mechanism, is highly misleading.

References (67)

  • D.A. Allport

    Attention and performance

  • D.A. Allport et al.

    On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis

    Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1972)
  • R. Atkinson et al.

    Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display

    Perception & Psychophysics

    (1972)
  • P.C. Badgio et al.

    What is the nature of capacity limitations in visual object recognition?

    (1988)
  • P. Bertelson

    Central intermittency twenty years later

    Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1966)
  • R. Blake et al.

    Visual form recognition threshhold and the psychological refractory period

    Perception & Psychophysics

    (1969)
  • R. Borger

    The refractory period and serial choice-reactions

    Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1963)
  • D.E. Broadbent
  • J. Duncan

    The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli

    Psychological Review

    (1980)
  • J. Duncan

    Category effects in visual search: A failure to replicate the “oh-zero” phenomenon

    Perception & Psychophysics

    (1983)
  • C.W. Eriksen et al.

    The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays

    Perception & Psychophysics

    (1973)
  • C.W. Eriksen et al.

    Rate of information processing in visual perception: Some results and methodological considerations

    Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph

    (1969)
  • M. Gagnon et al.

    Processing differences between memory search and foveal visual search

    Perception & Psychophysics

    (1978)
  • D. Gopher et al.

    Different difficulty manipulations interact differently with task emphasis: Evidence for multiple resources

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1982)
  • I.E. Gordon

    Interactions between items in visual search

    Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1968)
  • R. Gottsdanker

    The ubiquitous role of preparation

  • R. Gottsdanker et al.

    Varied and constant inter-signal intervals in psychological refractoriness

    Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1966)
  • B.F. Green et al.

    Color coding in a visual search task

    Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1956)
  • L.M. Herman et al.

    The psychological refractory period effect: Only half the double-simulation story?

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1970)
  • D. Kahneman
  • B. Kantowitz

    Double stimulation

  • S.W. Keele
  • J.A. Kleiss et al.

    Locus of persistence of capacity limitations in visual information processing

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1986)
  • Cited by (0)

    Support for this work was provided by NASA under Interchange NCA2-225.

    View full text