Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33000438›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021

Effects of task probability on prioritized processing: Modulating the efficiency of parallel response selection.

Jeff Miller, Jia Li Tang

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeff MillerDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand. miller@psy.otago.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2718-3153
Jia Li TangDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.
University of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Psychomotor PerformanceHumansProbabilityReaction TimeBottleneck modelsCapacity modelsMultitaskingPrioritized processing paradigmTask probability

Identifiers

PMID33000438
OpenAlexW3089928615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.