Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Divided Attention

  • Anna MacKay-BrandtEmail author
  • Tina Trudel
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1294

Synonyms

Dual task

Definition

A situation in which the individual’s goal is to divide attention among two (or more) tasks.

Historical Background

Telford (1931) demonstrated that when a person responds to two successive stimuli, the response to the second stimulus is slower as the distance between the two responses is shortened. He named this effect the psychological refractory period, after the phenomena observed in neurons of reduced excitability just following an action potential. The first modern theories of how an individual is able to perform two or more activities concurrently came from the information theorists Welford (1952) and Broadbent (1958) and formalized Telford’s assumption. The assumption was that activities did not co-occur, but instead they were dealt with in a series. This opinion of serial processing was challenged in the 1970s (Kahneman 1973; Posner and Boies 1971) when researchers proposed a general resource theory that hypothesized that individuals were able to...

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

References and Readings

  1. Anguera, J. A., Boccanfuso, J., Rintoul, J. L., Al-Hashimi, O., Faraji, F., Janowich, J., Kong, E., Larraburo, Y., Rolle, C., Johnston, E., & Gazzaley, A. (2013). Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature, 501, 97–101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Broadbent, D. E., & Gregory, M. (1967). Psychological refractory period and the length of time required to make a decision. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 168, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pashler, H. (1994). Overlapping mental operations in serial performance with preview. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 161–191.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of mental processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Posner, M. I., & Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Verghese, J., Buschke, H., Viola, L., Katz, M., Hall, C., Kuslansky, G., & Lipton, R. (2002). Validity of divided attention tasks in predicting falls in older individuals: A preliminary study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50(9), 1572–1576.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric ResearchOrangeburgUSA
  2. 2.Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer’s Disease and the Aging Brain, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Northeast Evaluation Specialists, PLLCDoverUSA