Suppr超能文献

关于任务切换提前准备的限度:人们是在某些时候准备所有任务,还是始终准备部分任务?

On the limits of advance preparation for a task switch: do people prepare all the task some of the time or some of the task all the time?

作者信息

Lien Mei-Ching, Ruthruff Eric, Remington Roger W, Johnston James C

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.

出版信息

J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Apr;31(2):299-315. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.2.299.

Abstract

This study investigated the nature of advance preparation for a task switch, testing 2 key assumptions of R. De Jong's (2000) failure-to-engage theory: (a) Task-switch preparation is all-or-none, and (b) preparation failures stem from nonutilization of available control capabilities. In 3 experiments, switch costs varied dramatically across individual stimulus-response (S-R) pairs of the tasks-virtually absent for 1 pair but large for others. These findings indicate that, across trials, task preparation was not all-or-none but, rather, consistently partial (full preparation for some S-R pairs but not others). In other words, people do not prepare all of the task some of the time, they prepare some of the task all of the time. Experiments 2 and 3 produced substantial switch costs even though time deadlines provided strong incentives for optimal advance preparation. Thus, there was no evidence that people have a latent capability to fully prepare for a task switch.

摘要

本研究调查了任务切换的提前准备的本质,检验了R. 德容(2000年)的未参与理论的两个关键假设:(a)任务切换准备是全或无的,以及(b)准备失败源于未利用可用的控制能力。在3个实验中,切换成本在任务的各个刺激-反应(S-R)对之间有很大差异——对于一对几乎不存在,但对其他对则很大。这些发现表明,在多次试验中,任务准备不是全或无的,而是始终部分存在(对一些S-R对进行了充分准备,但对其他对则没有)。换句话说,人们不是有时对所有任务进行准备,而是始终对部分任务进行准备。实验2和实验3产生了大量的切换成本,即使时间期限为最佳提前准备提供了强烈激励。因此,没有证据表明人们具有为任务切换进行充分准备的潜在能力。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验