Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dual-task interference and response strategies in simulated car driving: impact of first-task characteristics on the psychological refractory period effect

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Presentation of a task T1 typically delays the response to a subsequent task T2, more so with high temporal task overlap than with low temporal overlap. This so-called “psychological refractory period effect” (PRP effect) has been observed even if T1 required not a choice between distinct stimulus–response pairs, but rather between a given stimulus–response pair occurring once or twice. We explored which response strategy participants use for responding to such an unusual type of T1 and how such a T1 interacts with T2 performance. In a driving simulator, participants followed a lead car and had to honk when that car’s rear window changed color (T1). In condition “pure”, the color always changed once and required a single honk; in condition “mixed”, the color changed once and required a single honk on some trials, but on other trials, it changed twice 200 ms apart and required a double honk. Participants also had to brake when the lead car braked (T2). On dual-task trials, T1 preceded T2 with a varying stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 50–1200 ms. Reaction time to the first T1 stimulus was similar in “pure” and “mixed” and it was comparable with the reaction time to the second T1 stimulus. Reaction time to the T2 stimulus increased as SOA decreased from 350 to 50 ms, confirming the existence of a PRP effect. Furthermore, reaction time to the T2 stimulus was similar in “pure” and in “mixed” with one T1 stimulus, but was higher in “mixed” with two T1 stimuli. This pattern of findings is compatible with the view that presentation of the first T1 stimulus triggers a single response, which is amended into a double response, if a second T1 stimulus is displayed. The amendment does not need to wait until central processing of the original response is completed, and it therefore begins with no delay beyond the regular reaction time. Our findings further suggest that the mere possibility of a second T1 stimulus being presented does not increase the PRP effect on T2, probably because response amendments are not equivalent to classical response choices. However, the actual presentation of a second T1 stimulus indeed does increase the PRP effect on T2, probably because amendments start 200 ms later than the original response, and therefore prolong central processing of T1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barrett, N. C., & Glencross, D. J. (1988). The double step analysis of rapid manual aiming movements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a, 40(2), 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, O., & Jüngling, S. (1999). Reprogramming of grip aperture in a double-step virtual grasping paradigm. Experimental Brain Research, 125(1), 61–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratzke, D., Ulrich, R., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., Jentzsch, I., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(9), 1385–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donders, F. C. (1969). Over de snelheid van psychische processen. [On the speed of psychological processes]. In W. Koster (Ed. And Trans.), Attention and performance II (pp. 412–431). Amsterdam: North-Holland (Original work published 1868).

  • Flash, T., & Henis, E. (1991). Arm trajectory modifications during reaching towards visual targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(3), 220–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottsdanker, R. (1973). Psychological refractoriness and the organization of step-tracking responses. Perception and Psychophysics, 14(1), 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 527.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibberd, D. L., Jamson, S. L., and Carsten, O. M. J. (2010). Managing in-vehicle distractions: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 4–11).

  • Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahnemann, D. (1973). Attention and effort. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(2), 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, B. (1979). Is reaction time different for long and short response durations in simple and choice conditions? Journal of Motor Behavior, 11(4), 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking: An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 557–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(1), 192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2008). Task prioritisation in multitasking during driving: Opportunity to abort a concurrent task does not insulate braking responses from dual-task slowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J., Pashler, H., & Boer, E. (2006). Central interference in driving is there any stopping the psychological refractory period? Psychological Science, 17(3), 228–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(2), 471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megaw, E. D. (1974). Possible modification to a rapid on-going programmed manual response. Brain Research, 71(2–3), 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104(4), 749–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(3), 358–377.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1991). Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: Distinct attentional mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17(4), 1023–1040.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. (1996). Interference effects during the simultaneous processing of two tasks. Zeitschrift für experimentelle Psychologie, 4, 625–656. (German).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(2), 408–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T., & Strobach, T. (2018). Practice-related optimization of dual-task performance: Efficient task instantiation during overlapping task processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1884–1904.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. H., Lauber, E. J., Glass, J. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Gmeindl, L., Kieras, D. E., et al. (1999). Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(3), 791–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. C. (1969). The effect of varying information on the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 30, 220–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soechting, J. F., & Lacquaniti, F. (1983). Modification of trajectory of a pointing movement in response to a change in target location. Journal of Neurophysiology, 49(2), 548–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzel, C., & Schubert, T. (2011). Interference effects of stimulus–response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness. Psychological Research, 75(6), 476–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Cleaning up your act: Screening data prior to analysis. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5, 61–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R., Fernández, S. R., Jentzsch, I., Rolke, B., Schröter, H., & Leuthold, H. (2006). Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions. Psychological Science, 17(9), 788–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sonderen, J. F., Denier van der Gon, J. J., & Gielen, C. C. A. M. (1988). Conditions determining early modification of motor programmes in response to changes in target location. Experimental Brain Research, 71(2), 320–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sonderen, J. F., Gielen, C. C. A. M., & Denier van der Gon, J. J. (1989). Motor programmes for goal-directed movements are continuously adjusted according to changes in target location. Experimental Brain Research, 78(1), 139–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 2–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. VIII, pp. 239–257). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Assoc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants within the Priority Program SPP 1772 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), Grants BO 649/22-1, KO 2045/19-1 and 19-2 and SCHU 1397/7-1 and 7-2. Thanks are due to Thomas Kesnerus who modified available driving simulator software for the purposes of our study, and to Rebecca Stein who assisted with data collection and analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Exercise Training and Sport Informatics, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany

    Otmar Bock

  2. Institute of Movement Therapy and Movement-Oriented Prevention and Rehabilitation, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany

    Konstantin Wechsler

  3. Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Iring Koch

  4. Institute of Psychology, Martin-Luther-University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

    Torsten Schubert

Authors
  1. Otmar Bock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Konstantin Wechsler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iring Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Torsten Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Otmar Bock.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were pre-approved by the ethics committee of the German Sport University and were in accordance with the ethical standards of that committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All participants received a nominal compensation of 5 € per session (10 € in total).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bock, O., Wechsler, K., Koch, I. et al. Dual-task interference and response strategies in simulated car driving: impact of first-task characteristics on the psychological refractory period effect. Psychological Research 85, 568–576 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01272-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01272-5

Search

Navigation