How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening?
How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00426-004-0192-7
复制
发表时间：
2006-03-01
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Remington, R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ruthruff, E;Van Selst, M;Remington, R
本研究评估了练习如何减少双任务干扰的三种假设：练习教会参与者有效地整合任务对的表现；实践促进了单个任务的自动化，使中心瓶颈得以绕过；练习使瓶颈完好无损，但持续时间较短。这些假设在两个训练转移实验中得到了验证。参与者接受三种训练类型中的一种（仅任务1，或仅任务2，或双任务），然后进行双任务测试。实验1（任务1：听觉-声音；任务2：视觉-手册）的练习效果完全由完整瓶颈假设解释，没有任务整合或自动化。当任务顺序颠倒时，这个假设也很好地解释了大多数参与者（实验2）。然而，在这种情况下，有多个指标表明，几个参与者通过自动化一项或两项任务成功地消除了瓶颈。这两个实验都没有提供任何证据证明练习可以促进有效的任务整合。
The present study assessed three hypotheses of how practice reduces dual-task interference: Practice teaches participants to efficiently integrate performance of a task pair; practice promotes automatization of individual tasks, allowing the central bottleneck to be bypassed; practice leaves the bottleneck intact but shorter in duration. These hypotheses were tested in two transfer-of-training experiments. Participants received one of three training types (Task 1 only, or Task 2 only, or dual-task), followed by dual-task test sessions. Practice effects in Experiment 1 (Task 1: auditory-vocal; Task 2: visual-manual) were fully explained by the intact bottleneck hypothesis, without task integration or automatization. This hypothesis also accounted well for the majority of participants when the task order was reversed (Experiment 2). In this case, however, there were multiple indicators that several participants had succeeded in eliminating the bottleneck by automatizing one or both tasks. Neither experiment provided any evidence that practice promotes efficient task integration.