765 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26878090)
1. Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings.
Göthe K; Oberauer K; Kliegl R
Cognition; 2016 May; 150():92-108. PubMed ID: 26878090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: an fMRI study.
Stelzel C; Schumacher EH; Schubert T; D'Esposito M
Psychol Res; 2006 Nov; 70(6):514-25. PubMed ID: 16175414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Interference effects of stimulus-response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness.
Stelzel C; Schubert T
Psychol Res; 2011 Nov; 75(6):476-90. PubMed ID: 21811837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck.
Hazeltine E; Ruthruff E
Psychol Res; 2006 Nov; 70(6):504-13. PubMed ID: 16151721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Tactile Stimuli Increase Effects of Modality Compatibility in Task Switching.
Stephan DN; Koch I
Exp Psychol; 2015; 62(4):276-84. PubMed ID: 26421450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cross-modal psychological refractory period in vision, audition, and haptics.
Rau PP; Zheng J
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 May; 82(4):1573-1585. PubMed ID: 32052346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. What causes residual dual-task interference after practice?
Ruthruff E; Hazeltine E; Remington RW
Psychol Res; 2006 Nov; 70(6):494-503. PubMed ID: 16184395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation.
Stephan DN; Koch I
Psychol Res; 2016 Nov; 80(6):935-943. PubMed ID: 26377338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference.
Shin YK; Proctor RW
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Nov; 129(3):352-64. PubMed ID: 18845280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference.
Hazeltine E; Ruthruff E; Remington RW
Cogn Psychol; 2006 Jun; 52(4):291-345. PubMed ID: 16581054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dual-task automatization: The key role of sensory-motor modality compatibility.
Maquestiaux F; Ruthruff E; Defer A; Ibrahime S
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2018 Apr; 80(3):752-772. PubMed ID: 29285603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Central interference in driving: is there any stopping the psychological refractory period?
Levy J; Pashler H; Boer E
Psychol Sci; 2006 Mar; 17(3):228-35. PubMed ID: 16507063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Task switching, modality compatibility, and the supra-modal function of eye movements.
Stephan DN; Koch I; Hendler J; Huestegge L
Exp Psychol; 2013; 60(2):90-9. PubMed ID: 23047914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Sensory-motor modality compatibility in multitasking: The influence of processing codes.
Schaeffner S; Koch I; Philipp AM
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Nov; 191():210-218. PubMed ID: 30312892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility.
Stephan DN; Koch I
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2010 Jul; 36(4):1075-81. PubMed ID: 20565224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality.
Fintor E; Stephan DN; Koch I
Psychol Res; 2018 Jan; 82(1):121-133. PubMed ID: 28578525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. How conceptual overlap and modality pairings affect task-switching and mixing costs.
Schacherer J; Hazeltine E
Psychol Res; 2019 Jul; 83(5):1020-1032. PubMed ID: 29043435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. More insight into the interplay of response selection and visual attention in dual-tasks: masked visual search and response selection are performed in parallel.
Reimer CB; Schubert T
Psychol Res; 2019 Apr; 83(3):459-475. PubMed ID: 28917014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment.
Maquestiaux F; Laguë-Beauvais M; Ruthruff E; Bherer L
Mem Cognit; 2008 Oct; 36(7):1262-82. PubMed ID: 18927042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Improved intertask coordination after extensive dual-task practice.
Liepelt R; Strobach T; Frensch P; Schubert T
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Jul; 64(7):1251-72. PubMed ID: 21462091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
