Labor division in joint tasks: Humans maximize use of their individual attentional capacities.
Joint action
Multiple object tracking
Social cognition
Task division
Visual attention
Journal
Attention, perception & psychophysics
ISSN: 1943-393X
Titre abrégé: Atten Percept Psychophys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101495384
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
22
5
2020
medline:
17
12
2020
entrez:
22
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In daily life, humans frequently perform visuospatial tasks together (e.g., visual search) and distribute the labor in such tasks. Previous research has shown that humans prefer a left and right labor division in a joint multiple object tracking (MOT) task. Yet, findings from studies investigating individuals' tracking ability suggest attentional capacities may be more maximally used with a top and bottom labor division. We investigated whether co-actors' labor division preference is influenced by how they are seated (neighboring vs. opposite of each other) or how the MOT task is displayed (portrait vs. landscape). We find that pairs attain a higher performance using a top and bottom labor division and preferred this labor division compared to a left and right division. This preference was unaffected by the seating arrangement. For the landscape display, however, we find that participants no longer attain a higher performance for the top and bottom labor division and accordingly participants' preference for this labor division was greatly reduced as well. Overall, we propose that co-actors are sensitive to changes within their environment, which allows them to choose a labor division that maximizes use of their individual attentional capacities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32435973
doi: 10.3758/s13414-020-02012-3
pii: 10.3758/s13414-020-02012-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3085-3095Références
Alnæs, D., Sneve, M. H., Espeseth, T., Endestad, T., van de Pavert, S. H. P., & Laeng, B. (2014). Pupil size signals mental effort deployed during multiple object tracking and predicts brain activity in the dorsal attention network and the locus coeruleus. Journal of Vision, 14(4), 1–1.
Alvarez, G. A., & Cavanagh, P. (2005). Independent resources for attentional tracking in the left and right visual hemifields. Psychological Science, 16(8), 637–643.
pubmed: 16102067
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01587.x
Alvarez, G. A., & Franconeri, S. L. (2007). How many objects can you track?: Evidence for a resource-limited attentive tracking mechanism. Journal of Vision, 7(13), 14–14.
pubmed: 17997642
doi: 10.1167/7.13.14
Brennan, A. A., & Enns, J. T. (2015). When two heads are better than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of collaborative cognition . Psychonomic Bulletina and Review, 22(4), 1076–1082.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0765-4
Brennan, S. E., Chen, X., Dickinson, C. A., Neider, M. B., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2008). Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106(3), 1465–1477.
pubmed: 17617394
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.012
Cavanagh, P., & Alvarez, G. A. (2005). Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(7), 349–354.
pubmed: 15953754
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.009
Chen, W.-Y., Howe, P. D., & Holcombe, A. O. (2013). Resource demands of object tracking and differential allocation of the resource. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 75(4), 710–725.
doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0425-1
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101.
pubmed: 19575619
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100427
Goldman, A., & de Vignemont, F. (2009). Is social cognition embodied?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (4), 154–159.
pubmed: 19269881
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.007
He, S., Cavanagh, P., & Intriligator, J. (1997). Attentional resolution. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(3), 115–121.
pubmed: 21223875
doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)89058-4
Intriligator, J., & Cavanagh, P. (2001). The spatial resolution of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 43 (3), 171–216.
pubmed: 11689021
doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0755
James, W. (1890) The principles of psychology. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (2), 75–82.
pubmed: 15668100
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004
Marois, R., & Ivanoff, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(6), 296–305.
pubmed: 15925809
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.010
Meier, B. P., Schnall, S., Schwarz, N., & Bargh, J. A. (2012). Embodiment in social psychology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 705–716.
pubmed: 22777820
doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01212.x
Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3(3), 179–197.
pubmed: 3153671
doi: 10.1163/156856888X00122
Scholl, B. J. (2009). What have we learned about attention from multiple object tracking (and vice versa). Computation, Cognition, and Pylyshyn, 49–78.
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76.
pubmed: 16406326
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009
Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2007). Situated social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 132–135.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00490.x
Störmer, V. S., Alvarez, G. A., & Cavanagh, P. (2014). Within-hemifield competition in early visual areas limits the ability to track multiple objects with attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(35), 11526–11533.
pubmed: 25164651
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0980-14.2014
Szymanski, C., Pesquita, A., Brennan, A. A., Perdikis, D., Enns, J. T., Brick, T. R., ..., Lindenberger, U. (2017). Teams on the same wavelength perform better: Inter-brain phase synchronization constitutes a neural substrate for social facilitation. Neuroimage, 152, 425–436.
pubmed: 28284802
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.013
Vesper, C., Abramova, E., Bütepage, J., Ciardo, F., Crossey, B., Effenberg, A., ..., Wahn, B. (2017). Joint action: Mental representations, shared information and general mechanisms for coordinating with others. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2039.
pubmed: 28101077
pmcid: 5209366
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02039
Wahn, B., Czeszumski, A., & König, P. (2018a). Performance similarities predict collective benefits in dyadic and triadic joint visual search. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0191179.
Wahn, B., Czeszumski, A., Labusch, M., Kingstone, A., & König, P. (2020). Dyadic and triadic search: Benefits, costs, and predictors of group performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 1–19.
Wahn, B., Ferris, D. P., Hairston, W. D., & König, P. (2016a). Pupil sizes scale with attentional load and task experience in a multiple object tracking task. PloS One, 11(12), e0168087.
Wahn, B., Kingstone, A., & König, P. (2017). Two trackers are better than one: information about the co-actor’s actions and performance scores contribute to the collective benefit in a joint visuospatial task. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 669.
pubmed: 28515704
pmcid: 5413551
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00669
Wahn, B., Kingstone, A., & König, P (2018b). Group benefits in joint perceptual tasks: A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1426(1), 166–178.
Wahn, B., & König, P. (2017a). Can limitations of visuospatial attention be circumvented? A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1896.
Wahn, B., & König, P. (2017b). Is attentional resource allocation across sensory modalities task-dependent?. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 83.
Wahn, B., Schwandt, J., Krüger, M., Crafa, D., Nunnendorf, V., & König, P. (2016b). Multisensory teamwork: Using a tactile or an auditory display to exchange gaze information improves performance in joint visual search. Ergonomics, 59(6), 781–795.