Still no evidence for perfect timesharing with two ideomotor-compatible tasks: a reply to Greenwald (2003).

For 30 years, A. G. Greenwald and H. G. Shulman's (1973) psychological refractory period (PRP) study has been cited as evidence for perfect timesharing with ideomotor (IM)-compatible tasks. Recently, M.-C. Lien, R. W. Proctor, and P. A. Allen (2002) failed to replicate these results and concluded that IM compatibility is neither necessary nor sufficient to eliminate the PRP effect. A. G. Greenwald (2003) attributed Lien et al.'s nonreplication to the use of (a) a non-IM-compatible task, (b) varied trial spacing, and/or (c) inappropriate instructions. The authors of the present article argue that the first 2 factors are not critical and that instructions merely affect the criterion for speed versus accuracy. In each of Greenwald's experiments, dual-task costs were evident on response time or error rates. Furthermore, the small dual-task costs in his study are consistent with a bottleneck model. Thus, Greenwald (2003) does not provide evidence that IM-compatible tasks enable perfect timesharing.