Abstract

When two tasks, Task 1 and Task 2, are conducted in close temporal proximity and a separate speeded response is required for each target (T1 and T2), T2 report performance decreases as a function of its temporal proximity to T1. This so-called psychological refractory period (PRP) effect on T2 processing is largely assumed to reflect interference from T1 response selection on T2 response selection. However, interference on early perceptual processing of T2 has been observed in a modified paradigm, which required changes in visual-spatial attention, sensory modality, task modality, and response modality across targets. The goal of the present study was to investigate the possibility of early perceptual interference by systematically and iteratively removing each of these possible non perceptual confounds, in a series of four experiments. To assess T2 visual memory consolidation success, T2 was presented for a varying duration and immediately masked. T2 report accuracy, which was taken as a measure of perceptual—encoding or consolidation—success, decreased across all experimental control conditions as T1–T2 onset proximity increased. We argue that our results, in light of previous studies, show that central processing of a first target, responsible for the classical PRP effect, also interferes with early perceptual processing of a second target. We end with a discussion of broader implications for psychological refractory period and attentional blink effects.

Highlights

  • When two tasks, Task 1 and Task 2, are conducted in close temporal proximity and a separate speeded response is required for each target (T1 and T2), T2 report performance decreases as a function of its temporal proximity to T1

  • Having eliminated the confound of visual-spatial attention shifts, Experiment 2 built upon the design of Experiment 1 to remove a second potential confound—namely, sensory modality switching

  • The main goal of Experiment 4 was to exclude T1–T2 hand switching as a possible locus of psychological refractory period (PRP) interference in the results reported by Brisson and Jolicoeur (2007a, b)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Task 1 and Task 2, are conducted in close temporal proximity and a separate speeded response is required for each target (T1 and T2), T2 report performance decreases as a function of its temporal proximity to T1 This so-called psychological refractory period (PRP) effect on T2 processing is largely assumed to reflect interference from T1 response selection on T2 response selection. Despite the impressive flexibility and capacity of the human mind for adaptation, dedication to multiple overlapping tasks (i.e., multitasking) comes at a cost This cost can be studied in a laboratory setting using highly useful experimental procedures: the psychological refractory period (PRP; Telford, 1931) and attentional blink The original online version of this article was revised: In addition to Benoit Brisson, Justin Duncan should be designated as a corresponding author

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call