Lee April M C, Cerisano Stefania, Humphreys Karin R, Watter Scott
Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University.
Can J Exp Psychol. 2017 Jun;71(2):111-119. doi: 10.1037/cep0000114.
Many studies have shown that the cognitive demands of language use are a substantial cause of central dual-task costs, including costs on concurrent driving performance. More recently, several studies have considered whether language production or comprehension is inherently more difficult with respect to costs on concurrent performance, with mixed results. This assessment is particularly difficult given the open question of how one should best equate and compare production and comprehension demands and performance. The present study used 2 very different approaches to address this question. Experiment 1 assessed manual tracking performance concurrently with a conventional labouratory task, comparing dual-task costs with comprehension and verification versus production of category items. Experiment 2 adopted an extreme ecological and functional approach to this question by assessing dual-task manual tracking costs concurrent with continuous, naturalistic, 2-way conversation, allowing event-related analysis of continuous tracking relative to onsets and offsets of natural production and comprehension events. Over both experiments, tracking performance was worse with concurrent production versus comprehension demands. We suggest that by at least 1 important functional metric-performance in natural, everyday conversation-talking is indeed harder than listening. (PsycINFO Database Record
许多研究表明，语言使用的认知需求是导致中枢双重任务成本的一个重要原因，包括对同时进行的驾驶表现的影响。最近，一些研究探讨了就同时进行任务的成本而言，语言产出或理解在本质上是否更具难度，结果不一。鉴于如何最好地使产出和理解的需求及表现达到等同和可比这一悬而未决的问题，这种评估尤其困难。本研究采用了两种截然不同的方法来解决这个问题。实验1在进行一项传统实验室任务的同时评估手动跟踪表现，将双重任务成本与类别项目的理解、验证及产出进行比较。实验2通过评估与持续的、自然的双向对话同时进行的双重任务手动跟踪成本，采用了一种极端的生态和功能方法来研究这个问题，从而能够对相对于自然产出和理解事件的起始和结束的持续跟踪进行与事件相关的分析。在这两个实验中，与理解需求相比，同时进行产出任务时跟踪表现更差。我们认为，至少从一个重要的功能指标——在自然的日常对话中的表现来看——说话确实比倾听更难。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》 ）
