The Experts below are selected from a list of 24840 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Franziska Plessow - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
efficient multitasking parallel versus Serial Processing of multiple tasks
Frontiers in Psychology, 2015Co-Authors: Rico Fischer, Franziska PlessowAbstract:In the context of performance optimizations in multitasking, a central debate has unfolded in multitasking research around whether cognitive processes related to different tasks proceed only sequentially (one at a time), or can operate in parallel (simultaneously). This review features a discussion of theoretical considerations and empirical evidence regarding parallel versus Serial task Processing in multitasking. In addition, we highlight how methodological differences and theoretical conceptions determine the extent to which parallel Processing in multitasking can be detected, to guide their employment in future research. Parallel and Serial Processing of multiple tasks are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, questions focusing exclusively on either task-Processing mode are too simplified. We review empirical evidence and demonstrate that shifting between more parallel and more Serial task Processing critically depends on the conditions under which multiple tasks are performed. We conclude that efficient multitasking is reflected by the ability of individuals to adjust multitasking performance to environmental demands by flexibly shifting between different Processing strategies of multiple task-component scheduling.
Reinhold Kliegl - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
parallel Processing and sentence comprehension difficulty
Language and Cognitive Processes, 2011Co-Authors: Marisa Ferrara Boston, John Hale, Shravan Vasishth, Reinhold KlieglAbstract:Eye fixation durations during normal reading correlate with Processing difficulty, but the specific cognitive mechanisms reflected in these measures are not well understood. This study finds support in German readers' eye fixations for two distinct difficulty metrics: surprisal, which reflects the change in probabilities across syntactic analyses as new words are integrated; and retrieval, which quantifies comprehension difficulty in terms of working memory constraints. We examine the predictions of both metrics using a family of dependency parsers indexed by an upper limit on the number of candidate syntactic analyses they retain at successive words. Surprisal models all fixation measures and regression probability. By contrast, retrieval does not model any measure in Serial Processing. As more candidate analyses are considered in parallel at each word, retrieval can account for the same measures as surprisal. This pattern suggests an important role for ranked parallelism in theories of sentence comprehe...
-
parallel Processing and sentence comprehension difficulty
The Mind Research Repository, 2011Co-Authors: Marisa Ferrara Boston, John Hale, Shravan Vasishth, Reinhold KlieglAbstract:Eye fixation durations during normal reading correlate with Processing difficulty but the specific cognitive mechanisms reflected in these measures are not well understood. This study finds support in German readers' eye fixations for two distinct difficulty metrics: surprisal, which reflects the change in probabilities across syntactic analyses as new words are integrated, and retrieval, which quantifies comprehension difficulty in terms of working memory constraints. We examine the predictions of both metrics using a family of dependency parsers indexed by an upper limit on the number of candidate syntactic analyses they retain at successive words. Surprisal models all fixation measures and regression probability. By contrast, retrieval does not model any measure in Serial Processing. As more candidate analyses are considered in parallel at each word, retrieval can account for the same measures as surprisal. This pattern suggests an important role for ranked parallelism in theories of sentence comprehension. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.492228 Boston, M.F., Hale, J.T., Vasishth, S. and Kliegl, R. (2011). Parallelism and syntactic processes in reading difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 301-349
-
swift a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading
Psychological Review, 2005Co-Authors: Ralf Engbert, Antje Nuthmann, Eike M Richter, Reinhold KlieglAbstract:Mathematical models have become an important tool for understanding the control of eye movements during reading. Main goals of the development of the SWIFT model (R. Engbert, A. Longtin, & R. Kliegl, 2002) were to investigate the possibility of spatially distributed Processing and to implement a general mechanism for all types of eye movements observed in reading experiments. The authors present an advanced version of SWIFT that integrates properties of the oculomotor system and effects of word recognition to explain many of the experimental phenomena faced in reading research. They propose new procedures for the estimation of model parameters and for the test of the model's performance. They also present a mathematical analysis of the dynamics of the SWIFT model. Finally, within this framework, they present an analysis of the transition from parallel to Serial Processing.
Geoffrey M Boynton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
visual word recognition evidence for a Serial bottleneck in lexical access
Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 2020Co-Authors: Alex L White, John Palmer, Geoffrey M BoyntonAbstract:Reading is a demanding task, constrained by inherent Processing capacity limits. Do those capacity limits allow for multiple words to be recognized in parallel? In a recent study, we measured semantic categorization accuracy for nouns presented in pairs. The words were replaced by post-masks after an interval that was set to each subject’s threshold, such that with focused attention they could categorize one word with ~80% accuracy. When subjects tried to divide attention between both words, their accuracy was so impaired that it supported a Serial Processing model: on each trial, subjects could categorize one word but had to guess about the other. In the experiments reported here, we investigated how our previous result generalizes across two tasks that require lexical access but vary in the depth of semantic Processing (semantic categorization and lexical decision), and across different masking stimuli, word lengths, lexical frequencies and visual field positions. In all cases, the Serial Processing model was supported by two effects: (1) a sufficiently large accuracy deficit with divided compared to focused attention; and (2) a trial-by-trial stimulus Processing tradeoff, meaning that the response to one word was more likely to be correct if the response to the other was incorrect. However, when the task was to detect colored letters, neither of those effects occurred, even though the post-masks limited accuracy in the same way. Altogether, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that visual Processing of words is parallel but lexical access is Serial.
-
evidence of Serial Processing in visual word recognition
Psychological Science, 2018Co-Authors: Alex L White, John Palmer, Geoffrey M BoyntonAbstract:To test the limits of parallel Processing in vision, we investigated whether people can recognize two words at once. Participants viewed brief, masked pairs of words and were instructed in advance to judge both of the words (dual-task condition) or just one of the words (single-task condition). For judgments of semantic category, the dual-task deficit was so large that it supported all-or-none Serial Processing: Participants could recognize only one word and had to guess about the other. Moreover, participants were more likely to be correct about one word if they were incorrect about the other, which also supports a Serial-Processing model. In contrast, judgments of text color with identical stimuli were consistent with unlimited-capacity parallel Processing. Thus, under these conditions, Serial Processing is necessary to judge the meaning of words but not their physical features. Understanding the implications of this result for natural reading will require further investigation.
Burkhard Pleger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
dynamic causal modeling suggests Serial Processing of tactile vibratory stimuli in the human somatosensory cortex an fmri study
NeuroImage, 2013Co-Authors: Christian Kalberlah, Arno Villringer, Burkhard PlegerAbstract:Sensitivity to location and frequency of tactile stimuli is a characterizing feature of human primary (S1), and secondary (S2) somatosensory cortices. Recent evidence suggests that S1 is predominantly receptive to stimulus location, while S2 is attuned to stimulus frequency. Although it is well established in humans that tactile frequency information is relayed Serially from S1 to S2, a recent study, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in combination with dynamic causal modeling (DCM), suggested that somatosensory inputs are processed in parallel in S1 and S2. In the present fMRI/DCM study, we revisited this controversy and investigated the specialization of the human somatosensory cortical areas with regard to tactile stimulus representations, as well as their effective connectivity. During brain imaging, 14 participants performed a somatosensory discrimination task on vibrotactile stimuli. Importantly, the model space for DCM was chosen to allow for direct inference on the question of interest by systematically varying the information transmission from pure parallel to pure Serial implementations. Bayesian model comparison on the level of model families strongly favors a Serial, instead of a parallel Processing route for tactile stimulus information along the somatosensory pathway. Our fMRI/DCM data thus support previous suggestions of a sequential information transmission from S1 to S2 in humans.
Susanne Ditlevsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
distinguishing between parallel and Serial Processing in visual attention from neurobiological data
Royal Society Open Science, 2020Co-Authors: Mikiko Kadohisa, Makoto Kusunoki, John S Duncan, Claus Bundesen, Susanne DitlevsenAbstract:Serial and parallel Processing in visual search have been long debated in psychology, but the Processing mechanism remains an open issue. Serial Processing allows only one object at a time to be processed, whereas parallel Processing assumes that various objects are processed simultaneously. Here, we present novel neural models for the two types of Processing mechanisms based on analysis of simultaneously recorded spike trains using electrophysiological data from prefrontal cortex of rhesus monkeys while Processing task-relevant visual displays. We combine mathematical models describing neuronal attention and point process models for spike trains. The same model can explain both Serial and parallel Processing by adopting different parameter regimes. We present statistical methods to distinguish between Serial and parallel Processing based on both maximum likelihood estimates and decoding the momentary focus of attention when two stimuli are presented simultaneously. Results show that both Processing mechanisms are in play for the simultaneously recorded neurons, but neurons tend to follow parallel Processing in the beginning after the onset of the stimulus pair, whereas they tend to Serial Processing later on.
-
distinguishing between parallel and Serial Processing in visual attention from neurobiological data
bioRxiv, 2018Co-Authors: Mikiko Kadohisa, Makoto Kusunoki, John S Duncan, Claus Bundesen, Susanne DitlevsenAbstract:Serial and parallel Processing in visual search have been long debated in psychology but the Processing mechanism remains an open issue. Serial Processing allows only one object at a time to be processed, whereas parallel Processing assumes that various objects are processed simultaneously. Here we present novel neural models for the two types of Processing mechanisms based on analysis of simultaneously recorded spike trains using electrophysiological data from prefrontal cortex of rhesus monkeys while Processing task-relevant visual displays. We combine mathematical models describing neuronal attention and point process models for spike trains. The same model can explain both Serial and parallel Processing by adopting different parameter regimes. We present statistical methods to distinguish between Serial and parallel Processing based on both maximum likelihood estimates and decoding analysis of the attention when two stimuli are presented simultaneously. Results show that both Processing mechanisms are in play for the simultaneously recorded neurons, but neurons tend to follow parallel Processing in the beginning after the onset of the stimulus pair, whereas they tend to Serial Processing later on. This could be explained by parallel Processing being related to sensory bottom-up signals or feedforward Processing, which typically occur in the beginning after stimulus onset, whereas top-down signals related to cognitive modulatory influences guiding attentional effects in recurrent feedback connections occur after a small delay, and is related to Serial Processing, where all Processing capacities are being directed towards the attended object.
