Response selection bottleneck models attribute performance costs under dual-task conditions to the human inability to select more than one response at a time. Consistent with this claim Pashler (1991) found that carrying out a speeded manual choice reaction time (RT) task does not impair the unspeeded report of a cued visual target from a masked display. In contrast, Jolicoeur and Dell’Acqua (1999, Experiment 2) observed pronounced interference between a speeded manual choice RT task and the unspeeded report of a small number of visually presented letters, a finding they attributed to resource sharing between response selection and stimulus consolidation. We demonstrate that comparable costs are obtained with the same task combination used by Pashler (1991) if only task order is reversed—a manipulation that is likely to increase the necessity of consolidating the target stimulus into working memory. We also found that these costs are not diminished if the location of the target to be reported is cued in advance (reducing demands on spatial focusing) and that they do not vary with the number of target features to be reported. These findings support a consolidation account of costs in dual-task performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Akyürek, E. G., & Hommel, B. (2004). Short-term memory and the Attentional Blink: Capacity versus content. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Baddeley, A., Thomson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 575–589.
Egeth, H. (1977). Attention and preattention. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 277–320). New York: Academic Press.
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368–1384.
Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66, 260–273.
Hommel, B., & Schneider, W.X. (2002). Visual attention and manual response selection: Distinct mechanisms operating on the same codes. Visual Cognition, 9, 392–420.
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.
Jiang, Y., Olson, I. R., & Chun, M. M. (2000). Organization of visual-short term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 683–702.
Johnston, J. C., McCann, R. S., & Remington, R. W. (1995). Chronometric dissociation of input attention and central attention in human information processing. Psychological Science, 6, 365–369.
Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Dual-task interference and visual encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 596–616.
Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.
Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1999). Attentional and structural constraints on visual encoding. Psychological Research, 62, 154–164.
Jolicoeur, P., Dell’Acqua, R., & Crebolder, J. (2000). Multitasking performance deficits: Forging some links between the attentional blink and the psychological refractory period. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention & performance XVIII (pp. 309–330). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jolicoeur, P., Tombu, M., Oriet, C., & Stevanovski, B. (2002). From perception to action: Making the connection. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & performance XIX (pp. 558–586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effect of number of alternative on the psychological refractory period. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167–178.
Logan, G. D. (1978). Attention in character-classification tasks: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 32–63.
Logan, G. D. (1979). On the use of the concurrent memory load to measure attention and automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 189–207.
Logan, G. D. (1980). Short-term memory demands of reaction-time tasks that differ in complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 375–389.
Luck, S. J., & Beach, N. J. (1998). Visual attention and the binding problem: A neurophysiological perspective. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Visual attention (pp. 455–478). New York: Oxford University Press.
Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.
Olson, I. R., Chun, M. M., & Anderson, A. K. (2001). Effects of phonological length on the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1116–1123.
Pashler, H. (1991). Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: Distinct attentional mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1023–1040.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.
Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41 A, 19–45.
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 849–860.
Shapiro, K. L., Arnell, K. M., & Raymond, J. E. (1997). The attentional blink: A view on attention and glimpse on consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 291–296.
Smith, M. C. (1969). The effect of varying information on the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 30, 220–231.
Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1625–1640.
Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & performance XIX (pp. 538–552). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1–36.
Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1997). Decision and response. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 266–307.
Ward, R., Duncan, J., & Shapiro, K. (1996). The slow time-course of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 79–109.
Welford, A. T. (1952). The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high-speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–19.
Woodman, G. F., Vogel, E. K., & Luck, S. J. (2001). Visual search remains efficient when visual working memory is full. Psychological Science, 12, 219–224.
We wish to thank Nicola Korherr for her help during the empirical phase of the project. This research was carried out at and funded by the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich, Germany.
About this article
Cite this article
Hommel, B., Doeller, C.F. Selection and consolidation of objects and actions. Psychological Research 69, 157–166 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0171-z
- Response Selection
- Attentional Blink
- Rapid Serial Visual Presentation
- Target Selection
- Psychological Refractory Period