Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Cognition, Emotion & Development > Multitasking > Flashcards

Multitasking Flashcards

1
Q

COGNITIVE CAPACITY

A
  • even in singular tasks, cognitive capacity = limited
  • memory retrieval/decision making = time consuming
  • input processes (ie. syntactic parsing) handling limits
  • representational/storage capacity (ie. WM) = limited
  • limits = obvious when resources shared via tasks ie. more than 1 in certain time/some = time critical; simultaneous/switch between
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

MULTI-TASKING

A
  • ie. cooking/ironing/baby monitoring/phone calling
  • ie. chef/pilot/taxi driver
  • limitations = important theoretically (global computational architecture of brain) + practically (efficiency/risk/human error)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

MUTLI-TASKING DEMANDS

A
  • competition for shared resources in simultaneous tasks (dual-task interference)
  • task-switching = set-shifting/task shifting costs/retrospective memory (what’s left to do?)/prospective memory (ie. trigger monitoring (is it time to do X?)/trigger meaning (ie. what is X?))
  • OVERALL not single competence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

EXECUTIVE CONTROL DEMANDS

A
  • planning/scheduling/prioritising/coordinating the two task streams
  • trouble shooting/problem solving when it goes wrong/unexpected conditions arise
  • overall critical
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

USING PHONE WHILE DRIVING

A
  • epidemiological studies = ^ accidents; relative risk similar to driving at legal alcohol limit
  • observational studies = delayed braking at T-junction
  • experimental studies = impaired braking/hazard detection especially in young drivers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

RELATIVE RISK X USING PHONE WHILE DRIVING

A

STRAYER, DREWS & CROUCH (2006)

  • pp in simulator; follows pacer car in motorway 15m; tries distance maintenance; pacer sometimes brakes
  • baseline VS alcohol (80mg/100ml) VS casual hh/hf mobile talk (initiated before; terminated after measure)
  • phone = slower reactions/recovery/^ tail-end collisions
  • alcohol = ^ aggressive (closer following/harder braking)
  • NO STATSIG between hh/hf!
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES +

A

STRAYER (2015)
HF MOBILE
- < 50%: anticipatory glances to safety critical areas (ie. parked lorry blocking zebra)/later recognition memory of driving environment objects/P300 amplitude to brake light onset in followed car
- ^ unsafe lane change prob
- crash risk data suggests dif effect in direct talking; passengers = sensitive to driver’s load (ie. stop talking/wait for reply); help spot hazards/distractions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

LAB DUAL-TASK INTERFERENCE MEASURING

A
  • only 2 tasks designed measurement/manipulation

- typically measures performance on tasks A/B alone/A+B; questions performance deterioration in cs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

DUAL-TASK INTERFERENCE SOURCES

A
  • slower/inaccurate performance possibly via:
  • specialised domain-specific resource competition (ie. body effectors/sense organs/brain modules/processes/representations)
  • general purpose processing capacity competition (ie. central processor/GP processing resource pool)
  • limited executive control mechanism capacity (sets up/manages system info flow)/subliminal control strategies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

DOMAIN-SPECIFIC RESOURCE COMPETITION

A
  • two continuous speech inputs cannot be understood/repeated simultaneously BUT both can be monitored for target word-meaning
  • spatial tracking task interferes w/visual imagery to remember (both use visuo-spatial working memory)
  • 2 dif tasks use same perceptual processes/response mechanisms/central translation/coordination processes = dual-task interference UNLESS info rate low enough to switch resource use
  • question of concurrent performance by any task pair = some interference?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

GENERAL-PURPOSE PROCESSOR COMPETITION

A

BROADBENT’S P-SYSTEM (1958)

  • analogous to standard late 20th century digital computers w/single CPU
  • assumed required for pattern recognition/memory access/decision making/action selection/awareness
  • others (ie. POSNER (1978) identified consciousness w/central processor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

GENERAL-PURPOSE RESOURCE POOL COMPETITON

A

KAHNEMAN (1975)

  • first proposed shared concurrent task effort
  • capacity varies on:
  • over/within people (alertness)
  • sustained/available attention (diminishes w/boredom/fatigue; ^ w/time of day (NOT post-lunch dip)/moderate stressors (noise/heat)/emotional arousal/conscious effort
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

CENTRAL PROCESSOR/RESOURCE POOL ASSUMPTION

A
  • capacity shared by any 2 tasks
  • cap demand sum + NO exceeding total = no interference; exceeding = interference/^ 1 task difficulty = cap reduction for other
  • hard to know a priori how much cap task needs
  • test theory via pair use in tasks; obvs each would require all/most central capacity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

DEMANDING COMBINED TASKS W/O INTERFERENCE

A

ANTONIS & REYNOLDS (1972)
- Reading uni Y3 music students (competent pianists)
- A = G2(e)/G4(h) sight read; B = Austen(e)/Old Norse(h) novel shadow prose; little practice (10m shadowing for 2 no omission trials; 2m sight reading, 7m dual tasks)
- 2 sessions of dual tasks for easy/hard combos + 1m sight reading/shadowing alone (order balanced)
RESULTS
- shadowing/errors = no dif w/w/o concurrent sight; concurrent shadowing = no ^ sight errors
- ^ h shadow/sight errors (difficulty manipulations work) BUT neither affected by session 2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

DEMANDING COMBINED TASKS W/O INTERFERENCE (MORE EXAMPLES)

A

SHAFFER (1975)
- tasks combined w/o apparent interference
- skilled visual-type copying combined w/prose shadowing = no interference
NORTH (1977)
- one task insensitive to difficulty of other
- continuous tracking/digit = key task of: key press/before present one/successive pair digit identification
- no difficulty effect of task on tracking delays

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

NO CENTRAL GENERAL-PURPOSE PROCESSOR/RESOURCE

A

ALLPORT (1980)

  • complex input-output translation task pairs can be combined w/little/no inter if using non-overlapping modules (dif input codes/modalities/action systems/central representations/networks)
  • SO general-purpose central processor = unnecessary
  • BUT even when tasks use dif modules some inter arises via coordination/control demands (ie. specialised executive processes load consequence)
17
Q

NO CGP X DRIVING HYPOTHESIS

A
  • rebooted hypothesis:
    a) driving/navigation (visuo/spatial input -> hand/foot response) + conversation (speech input meaning speech production) = v dif module use?
  • YES/NO! dif input/output modalities BUT both require mental model construction (ie. driving = route/goals/progress/road-signs/observed events/potential hazard prediction etc.)
  • driving mental model construction interfered via convo asking for visuo-spatial arrangements (ie. “when we get to X, do you know how to find Y?”)/imagine movements
18
Q

IMPORTANCE OF PRACTICE

A

SPELKE HIRST & NEISSER (1976)

  • uncombinable w/o inter tasks = easier combined w/practice (ie. changing gear)
  • 85h practice reading stories (comprehension) simultaneously w/dictation writing (6w) then reading concurrent w/writing spoken words (11w)
  • some pp = little dual-task inter as:
  • practicing 1 task automates it (reduces executive control of constituent processes need)
  • practicing combo tasks develops optimal control strategies for combining the specific task pair
19
Q

BROADBENT’S OBJECTION TO ALLPORT EXPS

A

BROADBENT (1982)

  • continuous task pairs (ie. shadowing/sight reading) =
  • some input predictability/anticipation
  • substantial input/output lag (temp WM storage)
  • SO could still be central processor task switching (time-sharing); while servicing one task, input/output in other stored in WM buffers
  • processor-switching revealed in tests is concurrent tasks w/small input/output lags used + next stimuli = unpredictable (ie. RT tasks)
20
Q

PRP (PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD)

A

WELFORD (1952)
- 2 choice RT tasks
- stimulus onsets separated via variable/short interval (SOA (stimulus onset asynchrony))
SCHUMACHER et al (2001)
- 1 = audio-vocal (low/m/high tone = 1-3)
- 2 = visuo-manual (000 = index/m/ring finger)
- PRP effect (robust to practice) occurs even when stimuli/responses for 2 tasks = dif modalities

21
Q

PASHLER’S PRP THEORY

A

PASHLER (1990)

  • response selection = bottleneck; performed only p/task; if stimuli 2 arrives/identified, must wait til response selection mechanism = free
  • capacity limitation must be in central translation processes (perceptual processes -> central trans -> response execution)
22
Q

PRP CRITICISMS

A
  • RT task pairs w/no PRP interference exist (ie. GREENWALD & SHULMAN (1973); repeat spoken letter word + move lever w/arrow); all w/natural/practiced input/output mapping
  • observed PRP effect = not via structural bottleneck but cautious control strategy pps adopt to avoid responding to stimuli 2 (ie. MEYER & KIERAS (1997))
  • if pps trained w/liberal strategy = PRP disappears
  • dual task cost in PRP paradigm via bottleneck (response selection mechanism) VS soft capacity limits w/control strategies = still questioned
  • response-selection mechanism = NOT GPP
23
Q

SUMMARY

A
  • much inter between simultaneous tasks = via specialised resources competition
  • general purpose processing capacity for high cognition (consciousness?) = popular BUT few evidence
  • dual task inter cases interpreted as via GPP limited capacity competition/generic response-selection mechanism = better explained as:
  • domain-specific resource competition
  • specialised executive control mechanism capacity
  • inefficient control strategy use

Cognition, Emotion & Development (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions