Monitoring-induced disruption in skilled typewriting.

It is often disruptive to attend to the details of one's expert performance. The current work presents four experiments that utilized a monitor to report protocol to evaluate the sufficiency of three accounts of monitoring-induced disruption. The inhibition hypothesis states that disruption results from costs associated with preparing to withhold inappropriate responses. The dual-task hypothesis states that disruption results from maintaining monitored information in working memory. The implicit-explicit hypothesis states that disruption results from explicitly monitoring details of performance that are normally implicit. The findings suggest that all three hypotheses are sufficient to produce disruption, but inhibition and dual-task costs are not necessary. Experiment 1 showed that monitoring to report was disruptive even when there was no requirement to inhibit. Experiment 2 showed that maintaining information in working memory caused some disruption but much less than monitoring to report. Experiment 4 showed that monitoring to inhibit was more disruptive than monitoring to report, suggesting that monitoring is more disruptive when it is combined with other task requirements, such as inhibition.