Cited by 176Hemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dividing attention within and between hemispheres: Testing a multiple resources approach to limited-capacity information processing.

Friedman, Alinda, Polson, Martha C., Dafoe, Cameron G., Gaskill, Sarah J.·1982·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Abstract

Two experiments tested the limiting case of a multiple resources approach to resource allocation in information processing. In this framework, the left and right hemispheres are assumed to have separate, limited-capacity pools of undifferentiated resources that are not mutually accessible, so that tasks can overlap in their demand for these resources either completely, partially, or not at all. We tested all three degrees of overlap in demand for left hemisphere supplies, using dual-task methodology in which subjects were induced to pay different amounts of attention to each task. Experiment 1 compared complete and partial overlap by combining a verbal memory load with a task in which subjects named nonsense syllables briefly presented to either the left or right visual field (LVF and RVF, respectively). Experiment 2 compared complete versus no overlap by using the same verbal memory load combined with a laterally presented same-different judgment task that did not require a spoken response. Decrements from single-task performance were always more severe when the visual field task stimulus was presented to the RVF. Further, subjects in Experiment 1 were able to trade performance between tasks on both LVF and RVF trials because there was always at least some overlap in left hemisphere demand. In Experiment 2, performance trade-offs were observed on RVF (complete overlap) trials, but not on LVF trials, where no overlap in demand existed. These results contradict a single-capaci…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-1523.8.5.625

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Friedman, A., Polson, M. C., Dafoe, C. G., & Gaskill, S. J.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Published
1982
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
625-650
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
OpenAlex
W2082342312
Cited by
176
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
9.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
divided attention, hemispheric lateralization, resource allocation, dual-task performance, visual field presentation, laterality, performance trade-offs
MeSH terms
Attention, Discrimination Learning, Dominance, Cerebral, Humans, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phonetics, Reading, Mental Recall, Semantics, Serial Learning, Visual Perception

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