Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 1135–1140 | Cite as

Telephone conversation impairs sustained visual attention via a central bottleneck

  • Melina A. KunarEmail author
  • Randall Carter
  • Michael Cohen
  • Todd S. Horowitz
Brief Reports

Abstract

Recent research has shown that holding telephone conversations disrupts one’s driving ability. We asked whether this effect could be attributed to a visual attention impairment. In Experiment 1, participants conversed on a telephone or listened to a narrative while engaged in multiple object tracking (MOT), a task requiring sustained visual attention. We found that MOT was disrupted in the telephone conversation condition, relative to single-task MOT performance, but that listening to a narrative had no effect. In Experiment 2, we asked which component of conversation might be interfering with MOT performance. We replicated the conversation and single-task conditions of Experiment 1 and added two conditions in which participants heard a sequence of words over a telephone. In the shadowing condition, participants simply repeated each word in the sequence. In the generation condition, participants were asked to generate a new word based on each word in the sequence. Word generation interfered with MOT performance, but shadowing did not. The data indicate that telephone conversation disrupts attention at a central stage, the act of generating verbal stimuli, rather than at a peripheral stage, such as listening or speaking.

Keywords

Visual Attention Psychological Refractory Period Inattentional Blindness Telephone Conversation Multiple Object Tracking 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, R., McGeorge, P., Pearson, D. G., & Milne, A. (2006). Multiple-target tracking: A role for working memory? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1101–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez, G. A., Horowitz, T. S., Arsenio, H. C., DiMase, J. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2005). Do multielement visual tracking and visual search draw continuously on the same visual attention resources? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 643–667.Google Scholar
  4. Arnell, K. M. (2001). Cross-modal interactions in dual-task paradigms. In K. Shapiro (Ed.), The limits of attention: Temporal constraints in human information processing (pp. 141–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Briem, V., & Hedman, L. R. (1995). Behavioural effects of mobile telephone use during simulated driving. Ergonomics, 38, 2536–2562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavanagh, P., & Alvarez, G. A. (2005). Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 349–354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dell’Acqua, R., & Jolicoeur, P. (2000). Visual encoding of patterns is subject to dual-task interference. Memory & Cognition, 28, 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 11, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fougnie, D., & Marois, R. (2006). Distinct capacity limits for attention and working memory: Evidence from attentive tracking and visual working memory paradigms. Psychological Science, 17, 526–534.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Grabowecky, M., Iordanescu, L., & Suzuki, S. (2007). Attentive tracking involves a demand-based dynamic redistribution of attention [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 7(9), 580a.Google Scholar
  12. Helleberg, J. R., & Wickens, C. D. (2003). Effects of data-link modality and display redundancy on pilot performance: An attentional perspective. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13, 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herdman, C. M., & Friedman, A. (1985). Multiple resources in divided attention: A cross-modal test of the independence of hemispheric resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 40–49.Google Scholar
  14. Horowitz, T. S., Klieger, S. B., Fencsik, D. E., Yang, K. K., Alvarez, G. A., & Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Tracking unique objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Dual-task interference and visual encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 596–616.Google Scholar
  16. Levy, J., Pashler, H., & Boer, E. (2006). Central interference in driving: Is there any stopping the psychological refractory period? Psychological Science, 17, 228–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. McCarley, J. S., Vais, M. J., Pringle, H., Kramer, A. F., Irwin, D. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2004). Conversation disrupts change detection in complex traffic scenes. Human Factors, 46, 424–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dualtask performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pashler, H., & O’Brien, S. (1993). Dual-task interference and the cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 315–330.Google Scholar
  24. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 157–167). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sirevaag, E. J., Kramer, A. F., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1989). Resource reciprocity: An event-related brain potentials analysis. Acta Psychologica, 70, 77–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Spence, C., & Read, L. (2003). Speech shadowing while driving: On the difficulty of splitting attention between eye and ear. Psychological Science, 14, 251–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2007). Cell-phone-induced driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 128–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48, 381–391.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phoneinduced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 23–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dualtask studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological Science, 12, 462–466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ward, L. M., McDonald, J. J., & Golestani, N. (1998). Cross-modal control of attention shifts. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Visual attention (pp. 232–268). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 25, 227–248.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolfe, J. M., Place, S. S., & Horowitz, T. S. (2007). Multiple object juggling: Changing what is tracked during extended multiple object tracking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 344–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melina A. Kunar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Randall Carter
    • 2
  • Michael Cohen
    • 3
  • Todd S. Horowitz
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WarwickCoventryEngland
  2. 2.Colgate UniversityHamilton
  3. 3.Brigham and Women’s HospitalBoston
  4. 4.Harvard Medical SchoolBoston

Personalised recommendations