ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021
Effects of task probability on prioritized processing: Modulating the efficiency of parallel response selection.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preview position versus length: Key factors in the time course of parallel processing in multitasking.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Four experiments investigated the extent to which a limited pool of resources can be shared between different tasks performed simultaneously when it is efficient to do so. The experiments used a prioritized processing paradigm, in which stimuli for both a primary task and a background task were presented in each trial. If the primary-task stimulus required a response in a trial, participants made only that response. If the primary-task stimulus did not require a response, participants responded to the background task. The main manipulation was the relative probability that a response would be required to the primary versus background task. In some blocks, the majority of trials required responses to the primary task (Experiments 1 and 2: 80%; Experiments 3 and 4: 60%), whereas in other blocks the majority required responses to the background task. Background-task responses were substantially faster in blocks where they were more likely to be required, consistent with the idea that more capacity was allocated to them in these blocks. Backward compatibility effects on primary-task responses and stimulus-onset asynchrony effects on background-task responses provided further evidence of greater capacity allocation to the background task when there was a higher probability of responding to it. The results support the view that two tasks can be processed in parallel, with resources divided between them, when it is efficient to do so.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.