雙重任務干擾與資訊處理模式研究

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：29

、訪客IP：3.143.168.172

姓名

劉超群(Chau Chyun Liu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

機械工程學系

論文名稱

雙重任務干擾與資訊處理模式研究
(The dual-task interference and information-processing model research)

相關論文

★ 反應性磁控法濺鍍氮化鈦鎢薄膜磨潤行為研究	★ 應用田口方法於發光二極體導線架射出成型參數最佳化之研究
★ 應用田口方法於半導體晶圓盒製造最佳化	★ 虛擬護理數位診斷模擬系統開發之研究
★ 虛擬射出成型試驗機之研究	★ 三次元量床之虛擬儀器教學與訓練系統之設計與開發
★ 駕駛模擬器技術開發及其在駕駛行為研究之應用	★ 電源模組老化因子與加速試驗模型之研究
★ 藥柱疲勞特性與壽限評估模式之研究	★ 網際網路虛擬護理照護數位模擬系統之研究
★ 應用駕駛模擬器探討語音防撞警示系統對駕駛行為之影響	★ 虛擬實境應用於手部復健與電動輪椅模擬系統之研發
★ 遠距健康監測與復健系統之開發與研究	★ 縮尺發動機振動與疲勞壽限之研究
★ 藥柱低週疲勞特性與壽限評估模式之研究	★ 非接觸式電子經緯儀電腦模擬教學系統之研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

隨著資訊科技的迅速發展，愈來愈的人在駕駛過程中會使用各種車上資訊輔助系統，因為這些系統會在開車過程中提供許多資訊給駕駛者，會需要使用到駕駛者的注意力，因此在設計的時候，如果未能考慮到人的能力與限制，那麼這些系統不但可能不能幫助駕駛者，甚至還可能會產生一些負面的影響。本研究主要的目的就是希望從人因工程的角度出發，透過8個實驗探討人類注意力選擇的機制以及資訊處理的模式。實驗結果建議，任何車上資訊系統人機界面的設計，都應該考慮資訊處理的瓶頸。
從實驗的結果，可以得到以下結論：(1)刺激的強度對反應時間有顯著的影響，刺激強度愈強，反應的時間愈短；(2)任務愈困難，反應的時間會愈長，因此需要的注意力愈多；(3)周遭環境中突然出現的刺激，會自動吸引人的注意力，這能力使人可以即時發覺突發狀況，但也可能造成無法控制的分心；(4)預告可以加速對刺激的感知過程，但無效的預告卻可能造成反應動作延遲；(5)同時執行多個任務，因為彼此之間的干擾，會造成任務執行的性能下降；(6)瓶頸模式似乎比較符合人類資訊處理模式；(7)目標移動的速度會影響追蹤的績效，但也會使人的注意力更為專注；(8)人聽覺刺激的感知快於視覺刺激，但因為對聽覺方位的判斷不如視覺容易，所以對聽覺的反應動作會慢於視覺；(9)視覺負荷對反應時間造成的損害大於空間相容所帶來的利益，因此在人機界面的設計上，應盡量減少不必要的干擾。
透過本研究我們對人機界面的設計提出以下4點建議：(1)人機界面的設計要考慮到人資訊處理的瓶頸；(2)在需要緊急處理的事件前可先用簡單、顯著的訊號吸引操作者；(3)警示訊號最好能採用多種型態刺激的冗餘設計，如果只能用一種型態，人對聲音的感知速度會比視覺快；(4)視覺負荷會使得反應變慢，因此在人機界面的設計上要盡量減少不必要的訊號。

摘要(英)

As information technology continues to develop rapidly, drivers are increasingly using various in-vehicle assistant information systems for navigation, most of which have visual displays. Because these systems will offer a lot of information to drivers while driving, so they will need the driver’’s attention. If fail to consider people’’s ability and restriction in the design, then the efficiency of the equipment certainly will be unable to totally give play to, may even induce some negative influence. In order to explore the selective attention mechanism and human information-processing model, eight experiments were carried out basing on ergonomics consideration. Our experiments suggest that any human–machine interface design in driving-associated systems should consider this information-processing bottleneck.
The result of those experiments could receive the following conclusions: (1)There was apparent influence in response time in the stimulus intensity, the intensity of stimulus was stronger, the shorter of the response time was; (2)The more difficult the task was, the response time would be longer, so more attention that needed; (3)The stimulus that suddenly appeared in the surrounding environment would capture the participant’s attention automaticaly, this ability enabled people to discover immediately that the state happen suddenly, but it might cause uncontrollable diverting one’’s attention; (4)The pre-cue could promoted the perception processing, but the invalid pre-cue might cause movements of reaction to postpone; (5) In a dual-task condition, the performance of each component task was worse than that in a single-task condition; (6)The human information-processing model appeared to be a serial bottleneck model; (7)The speed that the target moves would influence the performance of the tracking-task, but would make people’’s attention more absorbed; (8)The perception of auditory stimulus was faster than a visual stimulus, but because the difficult of judgment to the position of sound was not so easy as the vision, so the reaction for sound would be slow to the vision; (9)Our experiments generally indicated that the loss due to visual load appeared larger than the benefit that came from a compatible spatial effect. This finding implies that the human-machine interface design of in-vehicle systems should avoid irrelevant stimuli.
Our study suggests that: (1) Any human machine interface design in systems should consider this information-processing bottleneck; (2) A simple and prominent signal could be used to attract operators’’ attention prior to the emergent events; (3) Warning signal should adopt various kinds of signal type redundant design, otherwise we should consider sound perception fast than visual; (4) Visual load will delay our response, so we should reduce unnecessary signal on human-machine interface design.

關鍵字(中)

★ 注意力
★ 雙重任務干擾
★ 資訊處理模式
★ 認知

關鍵字(英)

★ attention
★ dual-task interference
★ perception
★ information-processing

論文目次

中文摘要 ……………………………………………………………………………...…..i
英文摘要 …………………………………………………………………………..…..…ii
誌謝 ……………………………………………………………………….………..iv
目錄 …………………………………………………………..……….……...…..…v
圖目錄 …………………………………………………………………………...........ix
表目錄 ……………………………………………………………………....…....…...xi
符號表 …………………………………………...…………………………….…..…xii
一、前言…………………………………….………………………….….…....…..1
1-1 以人為中心的設計……….……………………….………………..…..….…..1
1-2 人的資訊處理模式………….………………………….…………..….……....3
1-2-1 感覺與知覺……….……………………………………….………..….……....6
1-2-2 認知階段………………………………………………….………..….……....8
1-2-3 行動階段…………………………………………….……………….………...9
1-3 注意力…………………………...……………………………………….…..10
1-4 工作負荷與反應時間……………………………………………….….....…13
1-5 視覺與聽覺…………........................................................................…15
1-5-1 視覺..................................................................................................…15
1-5-2 聽覺.................................................................................................….19
1-6 雙重任務干擾現象.........................................................................….21
1-7 研究目的………………………………………………………….…..….…..22
1-8 研究方法………………………………………………………….….…..…..24
1-9 研究流程及各章節內容……………………………………………..….…...26
二、文獻回顧…………………………………………………………….…….....29
2-1 注意力……………………………………………..……………….…….......29
2-1-1 注意力的選擇機制…………………………………….….………………....29
2-1-2 注意力與眼睛的運動……………………………………….….…….….…..33
2-2 感知與反應……………….……………………………………….….…..….36
2-2-1 感知…………………………………….…………….……………….……...36
2-2-2 反應時間……………………………….……………….…….……………...37
2-2-3 預告對反應時間的影響………………….………………….……….……...39
2-2-4 視覺與聽覺刺激對反應時間的影響..............................................…43
2-2-5 刺激與反應的空間相容影響..........................................................…44
2-3 視覺搜尋……………………………………….…………………...………...46
2-4 視覺追蹤..........................................................................................…50
2-5 雙重任務干擾與資訊處理模式………….……………….………………...52
2-5-1 容量模式……………………………………………….….………….……...52
2-5-2 瓶頸模式………………………………………….….………………….…..55
2-5-3 PRP與IRI……………………………………….…….………………….….58
2-6 文獻回顧討論…………………………………….…….………………..…..59
三、研究內容………………………………………….…….……………………62
3-1 實驗規劃………………………………………….…….………….………...62
3-2 實驗設備佈置與任務…………………………………….…………..……...62
3-2-1 實驗設備佈置……………………………………….……………..………..62
3-2-2 任務說明………………………………………………………...…….……...63
3-3 實驗1：刺激特性測試…………………………….……..…………...………67
3-3-1 參與者………………………………………………….….………………....67
3-3-2 實驗設計………………………………………………………..……….…...67
3-4 實驗2：搜尋任務困難度測試………………….…….…………...……….…68
3-4-1 參與者…………………………..........................................................68
3-4-2 實驗設計……………………………………….….............................68
3-5 實驗3：注意力選擇機制與雙重任務干擾測試………………...………...…69
3-5-1 參與者…………………………..........................................................69
3-5-2 實驗設計……………………………………….….............................69
3-6 實驗4：刺激同步出現對雙重任務影響測試………..……………...……….70
3-6-1 參與者…………………………..........................................................70
3-6-2 實驗設計……………………………………….….............................70
3-7 實驗5：無預告對雙重任務影響測試………………..………………….….71
3-7-1 參與者…………………………..........................................................71
3-7-2 實驗設計……………………………………….….............................71
3-8 實驗6：SOA對雙重任務影響測試……………….. …………………….….72
3-8-1 參與者……………………………………………………………...….……...72
3-8-2 實驗設計………………………………………………..…………………....72
3-9 實驗7：持續注意力與離散注意力干擾測試……………..…………...….…73
3-9-1 參與者……………………………………………………..………………...73
3-9-2 實驗設計……………………………………………………………...……....73
3-10 實驗8：刺激-反應空間相容性測試……………….……..…………......……74
3-10-1 參與者………………………………………………………………………..74
3-10-2 實驗設計………………………………………………………..……….…...74
四、實驗結果與討論…………………………………..…………………………77
4.1 實驗1：刺激特性測試結果…………………………..…………...….………77
4.2 實驗2：搜尋任務困難度測試結果………………….…..……………...……80
4.3 實驗3：注意力選擇機制與雙重任務干擾測試結果……………...…...……81
4.4 實驗4：刺激同步出現對雙重任務影響測試結果……………………….…86
4.5 實驗5：無預告對雙重任務影響測試結果…………..…………………...…96
4.6 實驗6：SOA對雙重任務影響測試結果………………..…………………106
4-7 實驗7：持續注意力與離散注意力干擾測試結果………..…...…109
4-7-1 單獨任務測試結果…………………………………………….………..…109
4-7-2 雙重任務測試結果………………………………………..……………..…111
4-7-3 持續注意力與離散注意力干擾實驗結論…………………………………112
4-8 實驗8：刺激-反應空間相容性測試結果………………………………..…112
4-8-1 平均感知時間……………………………………………..………………..116
4-8-2 平均反應執行時間……………………………………………………..…..117
4-8-3 平均反應時間………………………………………………………..…..…118
4-8-4 反應錯誤率與平均問題回答錯誤率………………..……………………..119
4-8-5 刺激-反應空間相容性實驗結論………………….……………………..…119
4-9 討論………………………………….……………………...……………….120
五、結論與未來研究建議………………………..……………………….…….138
5-1 結論………………………………………….………………………..…….138
5-2 在人機界面設計上具體建議……………………………………………....139
5-3 未來研究建議…………………………………………………………...….140
參考文獻………………………………………………………………………………….......141

參考文獻

[1] Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (Eds), Human Factors in Enginering and Design., 7th edition, McGraw-Hill Science, New York, January 1, 1993.
[2] Bell, C., “The Nervous Sustem of the Human Body”, Arch Neurol, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 662-666, December 1969.
[3] 鄭麗玉，認知心理學，二版，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，台北市，民國九十五年。
[4] Miller, G. A., “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information”, Psychological Review, Vol. 63, pp. 81-97, March 1956.
[5] Gagne, R. M. (Eds), The conditions of learning and theory of instruction., 4th edition, CBS College, New Jersey, December 1985.
[6] Wickens, C. D. (Eds), Engineering Psychology and Human Performance., 2th edition, Addison-Wesley, New York, January 1992.
[7] Gibson, J. J., “A Theory of Pictorial Perception”, Audio Visual Communication Review, Vol. 1, pp. 3-23, 1954.
[8] Gregory, R. L. (Eds), Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing., 3th edition, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1977.
[9] 侯東旭、鄭世宏，新版人因工程，初版，鼎茂圖書出版股份有限公司，台北市，民國九十二年。
[10] 林修如，應用人因工程學，初版，桂冠圖書股份有限公司，台北，民國八十四年。
[11] James, W. (Eds), The principles of psychology., Holt, New York, 1890.
[12] Luck, S. J., & Vecera, S. P. (Eds). Attention: From tasks to mechanisms., In Yantis, S. (Ed.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 1. Sensation and perception. (pp. 235-286), Wiley, New York, 2002.
[13] 高尚仁，心理學新論，揚智文化公司，台北市，民國八十五年。
[14] Yantis, S., “Stimulus-driven capture and attentional control settings”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 19, pp. 676-681, 1993.
[15] Johnston, W. A., & Heinz, S. P., “Flexibility and capacity demands of attention”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 5, pp. 168-175, 1978.
[16] Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L., “Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Vol. 3, pp. 215-229, 2002.
[17] Egeth, H. E., & Yantis, S., “Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 269-297, 1997.
[18] Bronkhorst, A. W., Veltman, J. A., & van Breda, L., “Application of a three-dimensional auditory display in a flight task”, Human Factors, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 23-33, 1996.
[19] Nanthavanij, S., & Yenradee, P., “Predicting the optimum number, location, and signal sound level of auditory warning devices for manufacturing facilities”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 569-578, 1999.
[20] Ogden, K. W., “Human Factors in Traffic Engineering”, ITE Journal, pp. 41-46, August 1990.
[21] Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (Eds), Signal Detection Theory and Ppsychophysics., Wiley. J., & Sons, New York, 1966.
[22] Treisman, A. M., “Features and objects: The 14th Bartlett memorial lecture”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 40A, pp. 201-237, 1988.
[23] Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G., “A feature-integration theory of attention”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 97-136, 1980.
[24] Telford, C. W., “The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 1-36, 1931.
[25] Gottsdanker, R., & Way, T. C., “Varied and constant intersignal intervals in psychological refractoriness”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 792-804, 1966.
[26] Herman, L. M., & Kantowitz, B. H., “The psychological refractory period effect: Only half the double-stimulation story?”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 73, pp. 74-86, 1970.
[27] Kahneman, D. (Eds), Attention and effort., Prentice Hall, New Jersey, September 1973.
[28] Welford, A. T., “The Psychological Refractory Period and the timing of high-speed performance - A review and a theory”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 2-19, 1952.
[29] Sanders, A. F., “The effect of compatibility on grouping successively presented signals”, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 26, pp. 373-382, 1967.
[30] Borger, R., “The refractory period and serial choice reactions”, Quarterly journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 1-12, 1963.
[31] Wickens, C. D., Processing resources in attention., In Parasuraman, R., & Davies, D. R. (Eds.), Varieties of attention. (pp. 63-102), Academic Press, New York, 1984.
[32] Ullman, S., “Visual Routines”, Cognition, Vol. 18, pp. 97-157, 1984.
[33] Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W., “Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attention inhibition of old objects”, Psychological review, Vol. 104, pp. 90-122. 1997.
[34] Agter, F., & Donk, M., “Prioritized Selection in Visual Search Through Onset capture and Color Inhibition: Evidence From a Probe-Dot Detection Task”, Journal of experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 722-730, 2005.
[35] Cherry, E. C., “Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and two ears”, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 25, pp. 975-979, 1953.
[36] Broadbent, D. E., Perception and Communication., Pergamon Press, New York, 1958.
[37] Moray, N., “Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 56-60, 1959.
[38] Treisman, A. M., “Contextual cues in selective listening”, Quartely Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 242-248, 1960.
[39] Treisman, A. M., “Strategies and models of selective attention”, Psychological Review, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 282-299, 1969.
[40] Corteen, R. S., & Wood, B., “Autonomic responses to shock-associated words in an unattended channel”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 308-313, 1972.
[41] Mckay, F. G., “Aspects of the theory of comprehension, memory and attention”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 22-40, 1973.
[42] Lachter, J., Forster, K. I., & Ruthruff, E., “Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): Still no identification without attention”, Psychological Review, Vol. 111, pp. 880-913, 2004.
[43] Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D., “Attention, some theoretical considerations”, Psychological Review, Vol. 70, pp. 80-90, 1963.
[44] Duncan, J., “The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli”, Psychological Review, Vol. 87, pp. 272-300, 1980.
[45] Lavie, N., “Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 451-468, 1995.
[46] Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N., “Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task”, Science, Vol. 278, pp. 1616-1619, 1997.
[47] Cave, K. R., & Wolfe, J. M., “Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 225-271, 1990.
[48] Yantis, S., “Goal directed and stimulus driven determinants of attentional control”, In Monsell, S., & Driver, S. J. (Eds), Attention and Performance XVIII. (pp. 73-103), MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000.
[49] van Zost, W., Donk, M., & Theeuwes, J., “The Role of Stimulus-Driven and Goal-Driven Control in Saccadic Visual Selection”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 746-759, 2004.
[50] von Helmholtz, H., “Concerning the perceptions in general”, In Treatise on physiological optics, Vol. III, 3th edtion, 1866(translated by Southall, J. P. C. 1925 Opt. Soc. Am. Section 26, reprinted Dover, New York, 1962).
[51] Posner, M. I., “Orienting of attention”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 3-25, 1980.
[52] Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umilta, C., “Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention”, Neuropsychologia, Vol. 25, pp. 31-40, 1987.
[53] Sheliga, B. M., Riggio, L., & Rizzolatti, G., “Orienting of attention and eye movements”, Experimental Brain Research, Vol. 98, pp. 507-522, 1994.
[54] Sheliga, B. M., Riggio, L., & Rizzolatti, G., “Spatial attention and eye movements”, Experimental Brain Research, Vol. 105, pp. 261-275, 1995.
[55] Theeuwes, J., “Working memory: system, or emergent property? Remembering a location makes the eyes curve away”, Cognitive Neuroscience Society Annual Meeting of 2006, San Francisco, USA, April 2006.
[56] Sperling, G., “The information available in brief visual presentation”, Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 14, pp. 101-109, 1960.
[57] 許勝雄、彭遊、吳水丕，人因工程學-Ergonomics / Human factors，初版，揚智文化事業股份有限公司，台北市，民國八十年。
[58] 野村順一，增補色之祕密，最新色彩學入門，文藝春秋，台北市，民國八十五年。
[59] Schuhfried, G., & Prieler, J., Mödling, Austria, November 2003. Copyright © by Dr. Schuhfried, G. Ges. m. b. H. SCHUHFRIED reaction test release 27.00.
[60] Hick, W. E., “On the Rate of Gain of Information”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 11-26, 1952.
[61] Hyman, R., “Stimulus Information as a Determinant of Reaction Time”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 188-196, 1953.
[62] Procotr, R. W., & Zandt, T. V. (Eds), Human Factors in Simple and Complex Systems., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1994.
[63] Olson, P. L., & Sivak, M., “Perception-response time to unexpected roadway hazards”, Human Factors, Vol. 28, pp. 91-96, 1986.
[64] Baker, J. S. (Eds), Perception and reaction in traffic accidents. Topic 864 of the Traffic Accident Investigation Manual., Northwestern University Traffic Institute, Evanston, 1989.
[65] 王世豪，「以駕駛模擬器進行跟車反應時間之探討」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國93年7月。
[66] Leonard, J. A., “Partial advance information in a choice reaction task”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 89-96, 1958.
[67] Jonides, J., “Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement”, In Long, J. B., & Baddeley, A. D. (Eds.), Attention and performance IX. (pp. 187-203), Erlbaum, New Jersey, 1981.
[68] Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. A., “Reflexive orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 15, pp. 315-330, 1989.
[69] Egly, R., Driver, F., & Rafal, R. D., “Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 123, pp. 161-177, 1994.
[70] Eriksen, C. W., “The flanker task and response competition: A useful tool for a investigating a variety of cognitive problems”, Visual Cognition, Vol. 2, pp. 101-118, 1995.
[71] Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E., “Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays”, Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 12, pp. 201-204, 1972.
[72] Groeger, J. A. (Ed), Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task., Psychology Press, New York, 2000.
[73] Bock, O., & Eversheim, U., “The mechanisms of movement preparation: A precuing study”, Behavioural Brain Research, Vol. 108, pp. 85-90, 2000.
[74] Eversheim, U., & Bock, O., “The role of precues in the preparation of motor responses in humans”, Journal of Motor Behavior, Vol. 34, pp. 271-276, 2002.
[75] Goldsmith, M., & Yeari, M, “Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and exogenous orienting”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 29, pp. 897-918, 2003.
[76] Brebner, J. M. T., & Welford, A. T., “Introduction: an historical background sketch”, In: Welford, A. T. (Ed.), Reaction Times., Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-23, 1980.
[77] Welford, A. T. (Ed.), Reaction Times., Academic Press, New York, 1980.
[78] Colavita, F. B., & Weisberg, D., “A further investigation of visual dominance”, Perception and Psychophys, Vol. 25, pp. 345-347, 1979.
[79] Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M., “Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance”, Psychological Review, Vol. 83, pp. 157-171, 1976.
[80] Pierno, A. C., Caria, A., Glover, S., & Castiello, U., “Effects of increasing visual load on aurally and visually guided target acquisition in a virtual environment”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 36, pp. 335-343, 2005.
[81] Chan, A. H. S., & Chan, K. W. L., “Synchronous and asynchronous presentations of auditory and visual signals: implications for control console design”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 37 (2), pp. 131-140, 2006.
[82] Cooper, R., “Visual dominance and the control of action”, Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 250-255, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1-4 August, 1998.
[83] Berlucchi, G., Crea, F., Di Stefano, M., & Tassinari, G., “Influence of spatial stimulus-response compatibility on reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized light stimuli”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 3, pp. 505-517, 1977.
[84] Berlucchi, G., Aglioti, S., Marzi, C. A., & Tassinari, G., “Corpus callosum and simple visuomotor integration”, Neuropsychologia, Vol. 33, pp. 923-936, 1995.
[85] Guiard, Y., “The lateral coding of rotation s: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses”, Journal of Motor Behaviour, Vol. 15, pp. 331-342, 1983.
[86] Hommel, B., “The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap”, Psychological Research, Vol. 55, pp. 280-290, 1993.
[87] Kunde, W., “Response–effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 27, pp. 387-394, 2001.
[88] Lee, F. C. H., & Chan, A. H. S., “Attending visual and auditory signals: Ergonomics recommendations with consideration of signal modality and spatial stimulus–response (S–R) compatibility”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37, pp. 197-206, 2007.
[89] Cheng, S. Y., Hsu, H. T., & Shu, C. M., “Effects of control button arrangements on human response to auditory and visual signals”, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 21, pp. 299-306, 2008.
[90] Bayerl,J., Miller, D., & Lewis, S. “Consistent layout of function keys and screen labels speeds user responses”, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32rd Annual Meeting, Human Factors Society, pp. 344-346, Santa Monica, Califormia, USA, 1988,
[91] Ghozlan, A., “Simon’s experiments and stimulus–response compatibility: hypothesis of two automatic responses”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 84, pp. 35-45, 1997.
[92] Roswarski, T. E., & Proctor, R. W., “Auditory stimulus–response compatibility: is there a contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence?”, Psychological Research, Vol. 63, pp. 148-158, 2000.
[93] Chan, A. H. S., & Chan, K. W. L., “Spatial S–R compatibility of visual and auditory signals: implications for human–machine interface design”, Displays, Vol. 26, pp. 109-119, 2005.
[94] Simon, J. R., “The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing”, In Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.), Stimulus- response compatibility. (pp. 31-86), North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1990.
[95] Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W., “The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review ofthe Simon and spatial Stroop effects”, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Vol. 2, pp. 174-207, 1995.
[96] Craft, J. L., & Simon, J. R., “Processing symbolic information from a visual display: Interference from an irrelevant directional cue”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 415-420, 1970.
[97] Hsu, S. H., & Peng, Y., “Control/display relationship of the four-burner stove: A reexamination”, Human Factors, Vol. 35, pp. 745-749, 1993
[98] Chua, R., Weeks, D. J., Ricker, K. L., & Poon, P., “Influence of operator orientation on relative organizational mapping and spatial compatibility”, Ergonomics, Vol. 44, pp. 751-765, 2001.
[99] Sternberg, S., “The discovery of processing stages extensions of Donder’s method”, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 30, pp. 276-315, 1969.
[100] Sternberg, S., “Memory-scanning: mental processes revealed by reaction time experiments”, American Scientist, Vol. 57, pp. 421-457, 1969.
[101] Wolfe, J. M., “Visual search”, In Pashler, H. (Ed.), Attention. (pp. 13-74), Psychology Press, East Sussex, United Kingdom, 1998.
[102] Egeth, H. E., Virzi, R. A., & Garbart, H., “Searching for conjunctively defined targets”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 32-39, 1984.
[103] Treisman, A., & Schmidt, H., “Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 107-141, 1982.
[104] Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W., “Visual search and stimulus similarity”, Psychological Review, Vol. 96, pp. 433-458, 1989.
[105] Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G., “Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 18, pp. 578-593, 1992.
[106] Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C., “Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control setting”, Journal of Experimeneal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 18, pp. 1030-1044, 1992.
[107] Bacon, W. F., & Egeth, H. E., “Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture”, Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 55, pp. 485- 496, 1994 .
[108] Theeuwes, J., “Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 20, pp. 799 -806, 1994.
[109] Ashbridge, E., Cowey, A., & Wade, D., “Does parietal cortex contribute to feature binding?”, Neuropsychologia, Vol. 37, pp. 999-1004, 1999.
[110] Kurien, T., “Issues in the design of practical multitarget tracking algorithm”, In Yaakov, B. S. (Ed.), Multitarget-multisensor tracking: Advance applications., Artech House Publisher, Norwood, Massachusetts, 1990.
[111] Blake, A., & Isard, M. (Eds), Active contours., Springer-Verlag, London, 1998 .
[112] Kida, T., Nishihira, Y., Hatta, A., Wasaka, T., Tazoe, T., Sakajiri, Y., Nakata, H., Kaneda, T., Kuroiwa, K., Akiyama, S., Sakamoto, M., Kamijo, K., & Higashiura, T., “Resource allocation and somatosensory P300 amplitude during dual task: effects of tracking speed and predictability of tracking direction”, Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 115, pp. 2616-2628, 2004.
[113] Horrey, W. J., & Wickens, C. D., “Driving and side task performance: the effects of display clutter, separation, and modality”, Human Factors, Vol. 46, pp. 611-624, 2004.
[114] Ryu, K., & Myung, R., “Evaluation of mental workload with a combined measure based on physiological indices during a dual task of tracking and mental arithmetic”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 35, pp. 991-1009, 2005.
[115] Liu, G., Austen, E., Booth, K., Fisher, B., Argue, R., Rempel, M., & Rnns J. T., “Multiple-object tracking is based on scene, not retinal, coordinates”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 31, pp. 235-247, 2005.
[116] McFarlane, D. C., “Coordinating the interruption of people in human–computer interaction”, In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC.13 International (1999) Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 295-303, Edinburg, Scotland, August 30-September 03, 1999.
[117] Eversheim, U., & Bock, O., “Study evidence for processing stages in skill acquisition: a dual-task”, Learning and Memory, Vol. 8, pp. 183-189, 2001.
[118] Mayeur, A., Brémond, R., & Bastien, J. M. C., “Effect of task and eccentricity of the target on detection thresholds in mesopic vision: implication for road lighting”, Human Factors, Vol. 50, pp. 712-721, 2008.
[119] Yucel, G., McCarthy, G., & Belger, A., “fMRI reveals that involuntary visual deviance processing is resource limited”, NeuroImage, Vol. 34, pp. 1245-1252, 2007.
[120] Tombu, M., & Seiffert, A. E., “Attentional costs in multiple-object tracking”, Cognition, Vol. 108, pp. 1-15, 2008.
[121] Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W., “Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism”, Spatial Vision, Vol. 3, pp. 179-197, 1988.
[122] Alvarez, G. A., & Horowitz, T. S., “Do multielement visual tracking and visual search draw continuously on the same visual attention resources?”, Journal of experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 31, pp. 643-667, 2005.
[123] Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P., “On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 225-235, 1972.
[124] Shaffer, H. L., “Multiple attentions in continuous verbal tasks”, In Rabbitt, P. M., & Dornic, S. (Eds.), Attention and performance V. (pp. 234-258), Academic Press, London, 1975.
[125] Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. J. “On data-limited and resource-limited processes”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 44-64, 1975.
[126] McLeod, P., “Parallel processing and the psychological refractory period”, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 41, pp. 381-391, 1977.
[127] Wickens, C. D., “Processing resources in attention, dual task performance, and workload assessment”, In Parasuraman, R., & Davies, R. (Eds.), Varieties of attention., Academic Press, New York, 1983.
[128] Navon, D., “Attention division or attention sharing?”, In Posner, M. I., & Marin, O. S. M. (Eds.), Attention and Performance XI. (pp. 133-146), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1985.
[129] Navon, D., & Miller, J. O., “Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 193- 251, 2002.
[130] Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P., “A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 29, pp. 3-18, 2003.
[131] Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P., “Testing the Predictions of the Central Capacity Sharing Model”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 790-802, 2005.
[132] Luck, S. J., & Vecera, S. P., “Attention”, In S. Yantis and H. Pashler (Eds.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology. (Vol. 1: Sensation and Perception, pp. 235-286), 3th edtion, Wiley, New York, 2002.
[133] Broadbent, D. E., & Gregory, M., “Psychological refractory period and the length of time required to make a decision”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Vol. 168, pp. 181-193, 1967.
[134] Navon, D., & Gopher, D., “On the economy of the human information processing system”, Psychological Review, Vol. 86, pp. 214-255, 1979.
[135] Gopher, D., & Donchin, E., “Workload: An examination of the concept”, In Boff, K. R., Kaufman, L., & Thomas, J. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance. (pp. 1-49), Wiley, New York, 1986.
[136] Navon, D., & Miller, J., “The role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 13, pp. 435-448, 1987.
[137] Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E., “A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena”, Psychological Review, Vol. 104, pp. 749-791, 1997.
[138] Pashler, H. E. (Ed), The psychology of attention., The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998.
[139] Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C., “Attentional limitations in dual-task performance”, In Pashler, H. (Ed.), Attention. (pp. 155-190), Psychology Press, East Sussex, United kingdom, 1998.
[140] Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W., “Stimulus–response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection”, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Vol. 9, pp. 212-238, 2002.
[141] Broadbent, D. E., “Task combination and the selective intake of information”, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 50, pp. 253-290, 1982.
[142] Keele, S. W. (Ed), Attention and human performance., Goodyear, Pacific Palisades, California, 1973.
[143] De Jong, R., “Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 19, pp. 965-989, 1993.
[144] Ehrenstein, A., Schweikert, R., Choi, S., & Proctor, R. W., “Scheduling processes in working memory: Instructions control the order of memory search and mental arithmetic”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 50A, pp. 766-802, 1997.
[145] Logan, G. D., & Burkell, J., “Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation: A comparison of stop, change and dual-task paradigms”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 12, pp. 549-563, 1986.
[146] Pashler, H., & Christian, C. L. (Eds), Bottlenecks in planning and producing vocal, manual and foot response., University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, August 7, 1994.
[147] McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. “Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual task interference”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 18, pp. 471-484, 1992.
[148] Pashler, H., “Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference?”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 20, pp. 330-342, 1994.
[149] Pashler, H., “Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 358-377, 1984.
[150] Magen, H., & Chhen, A., “Action-based and vision-based selection of input: Two sources of control”, Psychological Research, Vol. 66, pp. 247-259, November, 2002.
[151] Alvarez, G. A., Horowitz, T. S., Dimase, J. S., & Wolfe, J. M., “Do Multielement Visual Tracking and Visual Search Draw Continuously on the Same Visual Attention Resoures?”, Journal of experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 643-667, 2005.
[152] Bertelson, P., “Central intermittency twenty years later”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 153-163, 1966.
[153] Smith, M. C., “Theories of the psychological refractory period”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 67, pp. 202-213, 1967.
[154] Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C., “Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 41A, pp. 19-45, 1989.
[155] van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P., “Decision and response in dual-task interference”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 266-307, 1997.
[156] McCann, R. S., Remington, R. W., & van Selst, M., “A dual-task investigation of automaticity in visual word processing”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 26, pp. 1352-1370, 2000.
[157] Pashler, H., Johnston, J. C., & Ruthruff, E., “Attention and performance”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 629-651, 2001.
[158] Allen, P. A., Lien, M. C., Murphy, M. D., Sanders, R. E., Judge, K. S., & McCann, R. S., “Age differences in overlapping-task performance: Evidence for efficient parallel processing in older adults”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 17, pp. 505-519, 2002.
[159] Ferreira, V. S., & Pashler, H., “Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 28, pp. 1187-1199, 2002.
[160] Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R., “Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 29, pp. 280-289, 2003.
[161] Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Hazeltine, E., “Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement?”, Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 65, pp. 801-816, 2003.
[162] Carrier, M., & Pashler, H., “The attention demands of memory retrieval”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 21, pp. 1339-1348, 1996.
[163] Roskam, A. J., Brookhuis, K. A., Waard, D. D., Carsten, O. M. J., Read, L., Jamson, S., Ostlind, J., Bolling, A., Nilsson, L., Anttila, V., Hoedemaeker, M., Janssen, W. H., Harbluk, J., Johansson, E., Tevell, M., Santos, J., Fowkes, M., Engstrom, J., & Victor, T. (Eds), HASTE Deliverable 1: Development of Experimental Protocol (HASTE-D1)., Human Machine Interface And the Safety of Traffic in Europe, September, 2002.
[164] Chen, Z., “Selective Attention and the Perception of an Attended Nontarget Object”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and performance, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 1493-1509, 2005.
[165] Abe, G., & Richardson, J., “Alarm timing trust and driver expectation for forward collision warning systems”, Applied Egonomics, Vol. 37, pp. 577-586, 2006.

指導教授

黃俊仁、鄭銘章
(HWANG JIUN-REN、JENG MING-CHANG)

審核日期

2010-1-12

推文