Cited by 3,112Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyCognitive Functions and Memory

Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory

Pashler, Harold·1994·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

People often have trouble performing 2 relatively simple tasks concurrently. The causes of this interference and its implications for the nature of attentional limitations have been controversial for 40 years, but recent experimental findings are beginning to provide some answers. Studies of the psychological refractory period effect indicate a stubborn bottleneck encompassing the process of choosing actions and probably memory retrieval generally, together with certain other cognitive operations. Other limitations associated with task preparation, sensory-perceptual processes, and timing can generate additional and distinct forms of interference. These conclusions challenge widely accepted ideas about attentional resources and probe reaction time methodologies. They also suggest new ways of thinking about continuous dual-task performance, effects of extraneous stimulation (e.g., stop signals), and automaticity. Implications for higher mental processes are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dual-task conditions decrease performance in both laboratory and medical settings.

    “Dual-task conditions are known to decrease perfor-mance in both laboratory settings [31] and medical settings [32][33][34][35] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pashler, H.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Pashler, Harold
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1994
Volume
116
Issue
2
Pages
220-244
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2051914653
Cited by
3,112
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 154 · 2025: 155 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 132 · 2022: 160 · 2021: 159 · 2020: 171 · 2019: 146 · 2018: 152 · 2017: 141 · 2016: 143 · 2015: 156 · 2014: 136 · 2013: 137 · 2012: 111
FWCI
5.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R29MH045584)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
dual-task interference, attentional limitations, psychological refractory period, action selection, memory retrieval, task preparation, timing, attentional resources, probe reaction time, stop signal, automaticity
MeSH terms
Attention, Automatism, Humans, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review