Cited by 69Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Interference between conversation and a concurrent visuomotor task.

Open access
Boiteau, Timothy W., Malone, Patrick S., Peters, Sara A., Almor, Amit·2014·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

We report 2 experiments during which participants conversed with either a confederate (Experiment 1) or a close friend (Experiment 2) while tracking a moving target on a computer screen. In both experiments, talking led to worse performance on the tracking task than listening. We attribute this finding to the increased cognitive demands of speech planning and monitoring. Growth curve analyses of task performance during the beginning and end of conversation segments revealed dynamical changes in the impact of conversation on visuomotor task performance, with increasing impact during the beginning of speaking segments and decreasing impact during the beginning of listening segments. At the end of speaking and listening segments, this pattern reversed. These changes became more pronounced with increased difficulty of the task. Together, these results show that the planning and monitoring aspects of conversation require the majority of the attentional resources that are also used for nonlinguistic visuomotor tasks. The fact that similar results were obtained when conversing with both a confederate and a friend indicates that our findings apply to a wide range of conversational situations. This is the first study to show the fine-grained time course of the shifting attentional demands of conversation on a concurrently performed visuomotor task.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0031858

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Under dual-task conditions, performance in the linguistic and/or motor task is typically worse than when each task is performed alone.

    “Under such dual-task conditions performance in the linguistic or/and motor task is typically worse than when each task is performed by itself.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Boiteau et al., 2014

    The Introduction says that listening and talking can worsen performance on a concurrent visuomotor task, and the General Discussion reports worse tracking performance as conversational demands increase. But the claim generalizes beyond conversation and visuomotor tracking, and the paper does not establish that performance on either task is typically worse than when each is performed alone. Experiment 2 found no overall effect of conversation on tracking performance. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Both listening and speaking require some attention.

    “numerous studies have shown that both listening and speaking require some attention.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Boiteau et al., 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Baddeley AD 1986 Working memory Oxford Oxford University Press
  2. Clark HH 1996 Using language Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press
  3. Peters SA Boiteau TW Almor A in submission Pronouns, definite references, and semantic relations in spoken language comprehension PMC4772389 26973552
  4. Wickens CD 1984 Processing resources in attention Nickerson R Human Skills 2 71 105 New York Wiley and Sons

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boiteau, T. W., Malone, P. S., Peters, S. A., & Almor, A.
Affiliations
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • Newberry College (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2014
Volume
143
Issue
1
Pages
295-311
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2133479105
Cited by
69
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R21AG030445)
  • National Science Foundation (BCS0822617)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
conversation, speech preparation, speech monitoring, dual-task interference, moving target tracking, task difficulty, time course of attention
MeSH terms
Attention, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Speech, Visual Perception, Young Adult

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