Resource Notions in Explaining the Limits of Human Task Performance

  • A. Sanders
  • M. Donk
Chapter
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allport, D. A. (1980). Attention and performance. In G. Claxton (Ed.), Cognitive psychology — new directions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allwitt, L. F. (1981). Two neural mechanisms related to modes of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 324–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. D., & Lieberman, K. (1980). Spatial working memory and imagery mnemonics. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bainbridge, L. (1978). Forgotten alternatives in skill and workload. Ergonomics, 21, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlett, F. C. (1953). Psychological criteria of fatigue. In W. F. Floyd & A. T. Welford (Eds.), Symposium on fatigue. London: Lewis.Google Scholar
  7. Bornemann, E. (1942). Untersuchungen über den Grad der geistigen Beanspruchung. Arbeitspsychologie, 12, 142–191.Google Scholar
  8. Briggs, G., Peters, G., & Fisher, R. P. (1972). On the locus of divided attention effects. Perception and Psychophysics, 11, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford: Permagon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks, L. R. (1968). Spatial and verbal components of the act of recall. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 349- 368.Google Scholar
  11. Cattell, J. McK. (1885). The inertia of the eye and brain. Brain, 8, 295–312.Google Scholar
  12. Cliff, R. C. (1973). Attention sharing in the performance of a dynamic dual task. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danes, D. L., & Wickens, C. D. (1977), Dual task performance and Hick’s law. Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 209–215.Google Scholar
  14. Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70, 80–90.Google Scholar
  15. Dimond, S. J., & Beaumont, J. G. (1972). Processing in perceptual integration between and within the cerebral hemispheres. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 509–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman, A., Poison, M. C., Gaskill, S. J., & Dafoe, C. G. (1982). Competition for left hemisphere resources: Right hemisphere superiority at abstract verbal information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance, 7, 1031–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glucksberg, S. (1963). Rotary pursuity tracking with divided attention. Journal of Engineering Psychology, 2, 119–125.Google Scholar
  18. Gopher, D. (1985). In defense of resources: On structures, energies, pools and the allocation of attention.Google Scholar
  19. Gopher, D., & Sanders, A. F. (1984). “S-Oh-R”: Oh stages! Oh resources! In W. Prinz, & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and motor processes (pp. 231–253). Berlin etc.: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamilton, P., Hockey, G. R. J., & Reyman, R. (1977). The place of the concept of activation in human information processing. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, S., Owens, J., & North, R. A. (1978). A system for the assessment of human performance in concurrent verbal and manual control tasks. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 10, 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirst, W., Spelke, E. S., Reaves, C. C., Coharack, G., & Neisser, U. (1980). Dividing attention without alternation or automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 98–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hockey, R. (1979). Stress and the cognitive components of skilled performance. In V. Hamilton, & D. M. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition (pp: 141–177). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Hunt, E., & Lansman, M. (1981). Individual differences in attention. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of intelligence (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Isreal, J. B. (1980). Structural interference in dual task performance: Behavioral and electrophysiological data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  26. Isreal, J. B., Chesney, G. L., Wickens, C. D., & Donchin, E. (1980). P300 and tracking difficulty: Evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance. Psychophysiology, 17, 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Isreal, J. B., Wickens, C. D., Chesney, G. L., & Donchin, E. (1980). The event-related brain potential as an index of display-monitoring workload. Human Factors, 22, 211–224.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, J. C., McClelland, J. L. (1974). Perception of letters in words: Seek not and ye shall find. Science, 184, 1192–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnston, W., Greenberg, S., Fisher, R., & Martin, D. (1970). Divided attention: A vehicle for monitoring memory processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 164–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Kantowitz, B. H., & Knight, J. L. (1974). Testing tapping and time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kantowitz, B. H., & Knight, J. L. (1976). Testing tapping and time-sharing II: Use of auditory secondary task. Acta Psychologica, 40, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kinsbourne, M., & Hicks, R. (1978). Functional cerebral space. In J. Requin (Ed.), Attention and performance VII. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Kleiman, G. M. (1975). Speech receding in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 323–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindsay, P. H., Taylor, M. M., & Forbes, S. M. (1968). Attention and multidimensional discrimination. Perception & Psychophysics, 4, 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Long, J. (1976). Division of attention between non-verbal signals: All or none or shared processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lucas, M., & Bub, D. (1981). Can practice result in the ability to divide attention between two complex language tasks? Comment on Hirst et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 495–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McClelland, J. L. (1978). Perception and masking of wholes and parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McFarland, K., & Ashton, R. (1978). The influence of concurrent task difficulty on manual performance. Neurophysiologica, 16, 735–741.Google Scholar
  40. McLeod, P. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for mu1ti-procèssor models of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 651–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martin, M. (1980). Attention to words in different modalities: Four channel presentation with physical and semantic selection. Acta Psychologica, 44, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moray, N. (1967). Where is attention limited. A survey and a model. Acta Psychoiogica, 27, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Navon, D. (1984). Resources- A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Navon, D. (1985). Attention division or attention sharing. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1980). Interpretation s of task difficulty. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1986). The role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference (ICS Report 8601). California, San Diego: Institute for cognitive science.Google Scholar
  48. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  49. Neisser, U., Hirst, W., & Spelke, E. S. (1981). Limited capacity theories and the notion of automaticity: Reply to Lucas and Bub. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 499–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neumann, O. (1985).Google Scholar
  51. Norman, D., & Bobrow, D. (1975). On data limited and resource limited processing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. North, R. A. (1977). Task components and demands as factors in dual-task performance (Report No. ARL-77–2/AFOSE-77- 2). Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois at Urbana- Aviation Research LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  53. Pomerantz, J. R., Sager, L. C., & Stoever, R. (1977). Perception of words and their component parts: Some superiority effects. Journal of Experimental Human Perception an Performance, 3, 422–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pritchard, W. S., & Hendrickson, R. (1985). The structure of human attention: Evidence for separate spatial and verbal resource pools. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23(3), 177–180.Google Scholar
  55. Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1979). Current paradigms and models in human information processing. In V. Hamilton, & D. M. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition (pp. 115–140). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roediger, H. L., Knight, J. L., & Kantowitz, B. H. (1977). Inferring decay in short term memory: The issue of capacity. Memory & Cognition, 5, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rollins, H. A., & Hendricks, R. (1980). Processing of words simultaneously to eye and ear. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sanders, A. F. (1979). Some remarks on mental load. In N. Moray (Ed.), Mental workload: Its theory and measurement. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sanders, A. F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica, 53, 61–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schneider, W., & Fisk, A. D. (1982). Concurrent automatic and controlled visual search: Can processing occur without resource cost? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.Google Scholar
  63. Shaffer, H. L. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P. M. A. Rabbitt, & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and Performance V. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  64. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shulman, H. G., & Briggs, G. (1971). Studies of performance in complex aircrew tasks. Ohio State University Research Foundation. Air Force Project 2718, Final Report.Google Scholar
  66. Spelke, E., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4, 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sperandio, J. C. (1972). Charge de travail et regulation des processes opératoires. Travail Humaine, 35, 85–98.Google Scholar
  68. Sternberg, S. (1969). On the discovery of processing stages: Some extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psycho 1ogica, 30, 276–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taylor, M. M., Lindsay P. M., & Forbes, S. M. (1967). Quantification of shared capacity processing in auditory and visual discrimination. Acta Psychologica, 27, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Treisman, A. M. (1960). Contextual cues in selective listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 242–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Treisman, A. M., & Davies, A. (1973). Divided attention to ear and eye. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  72. Trumbo, D., Milone, F. (1971). Primary task performance as a function of encoding, retention, and recall in a secondary task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 91, 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Trumbo, D., Noble, M., & Swink, J. (1967). Secondary task interference in the performance of tracking tasks. Journal of Experimental Psycholoogy, 73, 232–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vidulich, M., & Wickens, C. D. (1981). Time-sharing manual control and memory search: The joint effects of input and output modality competition, priorities and control order. University of Illinois Engineering-Psychology Laboratory Technical Report EPL-81–4/ONR-81–4).Google Scholar
  75. Wandmacher, J. (1981). Contour effects in figure perception. Psychological Research, 43, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Watson, B. L. (1972). The effect of secondary tasks on pilot describing functions in a compensatory tracking task. University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies Technical Note No. 178.Google Scholar
  77. Weisstein, N., & Harris, C. S. (1974). Visual detection of line segments: An object superiority effect. Science, 186, 752–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wewerwinke, P. (1976). Human monitoring and control behavior. Netherlands National Aerospace Laboratory Technical Report, NLR TR 77010 U.Google Scholar
  79. Whitaker, L. (1979). Dual task interference as a function of cognitive processing load. Acta Psychologica, 43, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wickens, C. D. (1976). The effects of divided attention on information processing in tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  82. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman, & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). New York etc.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  83. San Francisco, Calif.
    Wickens, C. D., Isreal, J., & Donchin, E. (1977). The use of the event related cortical potential as an index of task workload. Proceedings 19th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society.Google Scholar
  84. Wickens, C. D., & Kessel, C. (1979). The effect of participatory mode and task workload on the detection of dynamic system failures. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man & Cybernetics, 13, 21–31.Google Scholar
  85. Wickens, C. D., & Sandry, D. L. (1982). Task hemispheric integrity in dual task performance. Acta Psychologica, 52, 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility & resource competition between modalities of input, control processing and output: Testing a model of complex performance. Human Factors, 25, 227–248.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Sanders
  • M. Donk

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations