Cited by 31Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyMotor Control and Adaptation

Action selection in complex routinized sequential behaviors.

Ruh, Nicolas, Cooper, Richard P., Mareschal, Denis·2010·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Abstract

We report two experiments in which errors and interaction latencies were recorded during routinization of hierarchically structured computer-based tasks. Experiment 1 demonstrates that action selection is slowed at subtask transitions, especially when selecting lower frequency actions. This frequency effect is compounded by concurrent performance of a secondary, attentionally demanding, task. Experiment 2 replicates these results in a more complex task and further demonstrates that the effects are reduced by experience. Several other factors were also found to affect latencies, including the availability of an external disambiguation cue and the temporal distance over which task context needs to be internally maintained. The results support a "dual-systems" account of action selection in which a "routine" system, sensitive to frequency, context, and experience, is selectively modulated by an attentionally demanding "nonroutine" system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017608

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • In laboratory tests, habits were most likely to be performed inadvertently when goal-directed control was taxed by advanced age or performing a secondary task.

    “In laboratory tests, habits were most likely to be performed inadvertently when goal-directed control was taxed by, for example, advanced age or performing a secondary task (e.g., de Wit et al. 2014, Ruh et al. 2010).”

    From Psychology of Habit. (2016) · cites this paper as Ruh et al. 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ruh, N., Cooper, R. P., & Mareschal, D.
Affiliations
  • Oxford Brookes University (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Published
2010
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
955-975
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
OpenAlex
W2095698146
Cited by
31
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Birkbeck School of Psychology
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
action selection, routinization, sequential behavior, dual-process models, attentional demands, response latency, experience effects, computer-based tasks
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Auditory Perception, Concept Formation, Cues, Decision Making, Female, Habituation, Psychophysiologic, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Practice, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Serial Learning, Time Perception, User-Computer Interface, Intention, Young Adult, Executive Function

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