Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 76, Issue 5, pp 566–578 | Cite as

The cost of serially chaining two cognitive operations

  • Zhao Fan
  • Krish Singh
  • Suresh Muthukumaraswamy
  • Mariano Sigman
  • Stanislas Dehaene
  • Kimron Shapiro
Original Article

Abstract

As Turing (1936, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society) noted, a fundamental process in human cognition is to effect chained sequential operations in which the second operation requires an input from the preceding one. Although a great deal is known about the costs associated with ‘independent’ (unrelated) operations, e.g., from the classic psychological refractory period paradigm, far less is known about those operations to which Turing referred. We present the results of two behavioural experiments, where participants were required to perform two speeded sequential tasks that were either chained or independent. Both experiments reveal the reaction time cost of chaining, over and above classical dual-task serial costs. Moreover, the chaining operation significantly altered the distribution of reaction times relative to the Independent condition in terms of an increased mean and variance. These results are discussed in terms of the cognitive architecture underlying the serial chaining of cognitive operations.

Keywords

Attentional Blink Independent Condition Practice Block Psychological Refractory Period Central Fixation Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by a grant from the Human Frontier Science Program to S. Dehaene, K. Shapiro, P. Roelfsema, M. Sigman and W. Vanduffel.

References

  1. Arnell, K. M., & Duncan, J. (2002). Separate and shared sources of dual-task cost in stimulus identification and response selection. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 105–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botvinick, M. M. (2008). Hierarchical models of behavior and prefrontal function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(5), 201–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brisson, B., & Jolicoeur, P. (2007). Cross-modal multitasking processing deficits prior to the central bottleneck revealed by event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 45(13), 3038–3053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chun, M. M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 109–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965–980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, R., Miller, J., & Schubert, T. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1685–1699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, R., & Schubert, T. (2008). Valence processing bypassing the response selection bottleneck? Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Experimental Psychology, 55(3), 203–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2001). Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 10–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2002). Banburismus and the brain: Decoding the relationship between sensory stimuli, decisions, and reward. Neuron, 36, 299–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kawahara, J. (2003). The effect of observer’s set on the processing of temporally distributed items. Japanese Psychological Research, 45, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maquestiaux, F., Laguë-Beauvais, M., Ruthruff, E., & Bherer, L. (2008). Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1262–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3–65.Google Scholar
  15. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple task performance: Part 2 Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1999). Precis to a practical unified theory of cognition and action: Some lessons from computational modeling of human multiple-task performance. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII (pp. 15–88). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 273–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oriet, C., Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2005). Symbolic distance affects two processing loci in the number comparison task. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 913–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ratcliff, R. (1988). Continuous versus discrete information processing: Modeling the accumulation of partial information. Psychological Review, 95, 238–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sackur, J., & Dehaene, S. (2009). The cognitive architecture for chaining of two mental operations. Cognition, 111(2), 187–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schumacher, E. H., & Schwarb, H. (2009). Parallel response selection disrupts sequence learning under dual-task conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 270–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapiro, K. L., Raymond, J. E., & Arnell, K. M. (1994). Attention to visual pattern information produces the attentional blink in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 357–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Parsing a cognitive task: A characterization of the mind’s bottleneck. PLoS Biology, 3(2), e37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: Dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biology, 4(7), e220. doi:210.1371/journal.pbio.0040220.
  29. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tubau, E., Hommel, B., & López-Moliner, J. (2007). Modes of executive control in sequence learning: From stimulus-based to plan-based control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turing, A. M. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungs problem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 42.Google Scholar
  32. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(3), 631–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Brown, S. (2007). On the linear relation between the mean and the standard deviation of a response time distribution. Psychological Review, 114, 830–841.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhao Fan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Krish Singh
    • 3
  • Suresh Muthukumaraswamy
    • 3
  • Mariano Sigman
    • 4
  • Stanislas Dehaene
    • 5
  • Kimron Shapiro
    • 6
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and BehaviorCentral China Normal University, Ministry of EducationWuhanChina
  2. 2.School of PsychologyCentral China Normal UniversityWuhanChina
  3. 3.School of PsychologyCardiff University, CUBRICCardiffUK
  4. 4.Physics DepartmentUniversity of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.Collège de FranceParisFrance
  6. 6.School of PsychologyBangor UniversityBangorWales, UK

Personalised recommendations