title: Workload capacity spaces: a unified methodology for response time measures of efficiency as workload is varied.
abstract: Increasing the number of available sources of information may impair or facilitate performance, depending on the capacity of the processing system. Tests performed on response time distributions are proving to be useful tools in determining the workload capacity (as well as other properties) of cognitive systems. In this article, we develop a framework and relevant mathematical formulae that represent different capacity assays (Miller's race model bound, Grice's bound, and Townsend's capacity coefficient) in the same space. The new space allows a direct comparison between the distinct bounds and the capacity coefficient values and helps explicate the relationships among the different measures. An analogous common space is proposed for the AND paradigm, relating the capacity index to the Colonius-Vorberg bounds. We illustrate the effectiveness of the unified spaces by presenting data from two simulated models (standard parallel, coactive) and a prototypical visual detection experiment. A conversion table for the unified spaces is provided.
authors: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
authors: James T
authors: JT
authors: Townsend
authors: Ami
authors: A
authors: Eidels
references: Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81-97
references: 13310704
references: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Feb;35(1):116-24
references: 12723786
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Dec;34(6):1441-63
references: 19045985
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991 Feb;17(1):160-9
references: 1826309
references: Psychol Rev. 1986 Apr;93(2):154-79
references: 3714926
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Aug;30(4):708-19
references: 15301619
references: Cognition. 2010 Feb;114(2):129-50
references: 19733840
references: Vision Res. 1998 May;38(9):1183-98
references: 9666987
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991 May;17(2):520-38
references: 1830090
references: Cogn Psychol. 2008 Nov;57(3):153-78
references: 18243170
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Dec;17(6):763-71
references: 21169566
references: Percept Psychophys. 2007 May;69(4):628-40
references: 17727116
references: Cogn Psychol. 2003 Mar;46(2):101-51
references: 12643892
references: Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2000 Nov;53 ( Pt 2):293-315
references: 11109709
references: Percept Psychophys. 1986 Apr;39(4):248-54
references: 3737352
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Jun;11(3):391-418
references: 15376788
references: J Math Psychol. 2011 Apr 1;55(2):176-190
references: 21516183
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Jun;32(3):755-79
references: 16822136
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1978 Aug;4(3):411-22
references: 681890
references: Psychol Rev. 2004 Oct;111(4):1003-35
references: 15482071
references: Am Psychol. 2001 Nov;56(11):851-64
references: 11785152
references: Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):551-67
references: 2270240
references: J Math Psychol. 2007 Aug;51(4):242-265
references: 18670591
references: Percept Psychophys. 1984 Dec;36(6):565-70
references: 6535102
references: Cogn Psychol. 1982 Apr;14(2):247-79
references: 7083803
references: J Math Psychol. 2001 Apr;45(2):283-323
references: 11302714
references: Science. 1966 Aug 5;153(3736):652-4
references: 5939936
references: Percept Psychophys. 1980 Nov;28(5):471-8
references: 7208258
references: Percept Psychophys. 1991 Jul;50(1):83-6
references: 1881769
references: Vision Res. 2000;40(10-12):1227-68
references: 10788638