Ruthruff Eric, Van Selst Mark, Johnston James C, Remington Roger
MS 262-4, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
Psychol Res. 2006 Mar;70(2):125-42. doi: 10.1007/s00426-004-0192-7. Epub 2004 Nov 17.
The present study assessed three hypotheses of how practice reduces dual-task interference: Practice teaches participants to efficiently integrate performance of a task pair; practice promotes automatization of individual tasks, allowing the central bottleneck to be bypassed; practice leaves the bottleneck intact but shorter in duration. These hypotheses were tested in two transfer-of-training experiments. Participants received one of three training types (Task 1 only, or Task 2 only, or dual-task), followed by dual-task test sessions. Practice effects in Experiment 1 (Task 1: auditory-vocal; Task 2: visual-manual) were fully explained by the intact bottleneck hypothesis, without task integration or automatization. This hypothesis also accounted well for the majority of participants when the task order was reversed (Experiment 2). In this case, however, there were multiple indicators that several participants had succeeded in eliminating the bottleneck by automatizing one or both tasks. Neither experiment provided any evidence that practice promotes efficient task integration.
练习教会参与者有效地整合任务对的表现；练习促进单个任务的自动化，从而绕过中央瓶颈；练习使瓶颈保持不变，但持续时间缩短。这些假设在两项训练迁移实验中得到了检验。参与者接受三种训练类型之一（仅任务1，或仅任务2，或双重任务），随后进行双重任务测试环节。实验1（任务1：听觉-发声；任务2：视觉-手动）中的练习效果完全由完整瓶颈假设解释，不存在任务整合或自动化。当任务顺序颠倒时（实验2），该假设也能很好地解释大多数参与者的情况。然而，在这种情况下，有多个指标表明，一些参与者通过使一项或两项任务自动化成功消除了瓶颈。两项实验均未提供任何证据表明练习能促进有效的任务整合。
