4.0 Article

Interference of cellular phone conversations with visuomotor tasks: An ERP study

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 14-21

Publisher

HOGREFE & HUBER PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1027//0269-8803.15.1.14

Keywords

attention; arousal; event-related potentials; mobile phones; cellular phones; CNV; readiness potential; P3

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of mobile phones has been shown to increase drivers' reaction times (RTs), but whether this results from interference with attention, stimulus identification, or response production remains unclear. We recorded RTs and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) reflecting speed of stimulus processing, attentional allocation, and preparedness to respond during a visual reaction task performed with or without the concomitant use of a mobile phone, in either hands-free or phone-in-hand operating modes. As expected, maintaining a phone conversation increased RTs to visual targets, this effect being associated with complex ERP effects. Phone conversations did not appear to delay target detection times, as assessed by N2-P3 latencies, but did significantly decrease stimulus-induced alerting and attentional allocation (P3 amplitude) and interfered with motor preparation processes (readiness potential). P3 amplitude drop was identical whatever the mode of phone use, while decrease of readiness potential was progressive from the hands-free to the phone-in-hand condition. These results suggest that two mechanisms contributed to degrade performance in this experiment: first, a general decrease of attention to sensory inputs, characteristic of dual-task situations, probably acting through a delay in sensory-motor transfer times. This effect was independent of whether the phone was handled or hands-free. Conversely, the second factor was specifically sensitive to manipulation of the phone and caused a weakening of the readiness to respond with a motor act.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available