Cited by 413Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyCognitive Functions and MemoryNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Training for attentional control in dual task settings: a comparison of young and old adults.

Kramer, Arthur F., Larish, John F., Strayer, David L.·1995·Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied

Abstract

The authors examined whether the learning and performance of dual tasks by young and old adults could be enhanced through training. Adults were trained with either a fixed-priority or variable-priority training strategy on a monitoring task and an alphabet-arithmetic task and then transferred to a scheduling and a paired-associates running memory task. Participants in the variable priority condition learned the monitoring and alphabet-arithmetic tasks more quickly and achieved a higher level of mastery on these tasks than did those in the fixed-priority condition. Moreover, participants trained with the variable priority technique showed evidence of the development of automatic processing and a more rapid rate of learning and higher level of mastery of the transfer tasks than did the fixed-priority participants. These results are discussed in terms of the mechanisms that underlie learning and performance of dual tasks and with respect to potential applications.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) Keywords: Driver distraction; Language: en

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1076-898x.1.1.50

Cites

98 of 98 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?

  • Evidence supporting the compensation account comes from numerous EF training studies revealing that training-related benefits were larger in children and older adults than in younger adults.

    “Evidence supporting the compensation account comes from numerous studies focusing on EF training, revealing that training-related benefits were larger in children and older adults than in younger adults”

    From Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence (2014) · cites this paper as Kramer et al., 1995

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. F., & Strayer, D. L.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied
Published
1995-03
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
50-76
ISSN
  • 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2192
OpenAlex
W2029277366
Cited by
413
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 23
FWCI
5.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
attentional control, dual-task training, aging, young and old adults, transfer of training, automatic processing, learning rate, monitoring, driver distraction

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