Address Correspondence to

Running head: IDEOMOTOR COMPATIBILITY AND PRP EFFECT

Still No Evidence for Perfect Timesharing with Two Ideomotor Compatible Tasks:

An Observation on Greenwald (2003)

Mei-Ching Lien Robert W. Proctor NASA Ames Research Center Purdue University

Eric Ruthruff

NASA Ames Research Center

Address Correspondence to:

Mei-Ching Lien

Mail Stop 262-4

NASA Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, CA 94035

e-mail: mclien@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/e413418924.html,

phone: (650) 604-6292

fax: (650) 604-3323

Abstract

For 30 years, Greenwald and Shulman’s (1973) psychological refractory period (PRP) study has been cited as evidence for perfect timesharing with two ideomotor (IM) compatible tasks. Recently, Lien, Proctor, and Allen (2002) failed to replicate their results and concluded that the use of two IM compatible tasks is neither necessary nor sufficient to eliminate the PRP effect. Greenwald (2003) suggested that Lien et al.’s non-replication may have been due to the use of (1) a non-IM compatible task, (2) varied trial spacing, and/or (3) inappropriate instructions. We argue that the first two factors are not critical and that instructions merely affect the criterion for speed versus accuracy. In each of his experiments, dual-task costs were evident on RT or error rates. Furthermore, the small dual-task costs in Greenwald’s study are consistent with a bottleneck model. Thus, his study does not provide evidence that IM compatible tasks enable perfect timesharing.

Still No Evidence for Perfect Timesharing with Two Ideomotor Compatible Tasks:

An Observation on Greenwald (2003)

The psychological refractory period (PRP) effect, the slowing of response time (RT) for the second of two tasks at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), has often been attributed to an inability to perform central operations (e.g., response selection) for two tasks at the same time (see Lien & Proctor, 2002; Pashler, 1984; Pashler & Johnston, 1998, for reviews). Many studies have examined whether the central bottleneck can be bypassed, thus greatly reducing or eliminating the PRP effect. Results have shown that the PRP effect is remarkably robust and sometimes remains even after extensive practice (e.g., Ruthruff, Johnston, & Van Selst, 2001; Van Selst, Ruthruff, & Johnston, 1999) or with highly compatible stimulus and response sets (e.g., Brebner, 1977; Smith, 1967). In one important exception, however, Greenwald and Shulman (1973) argued that central operations can be bypassed and the PRP effect can be eliminated (i.e., allowing perfect timesharing) with two ideomotor (IM) compatible tasks. They defined IM compatibility as situations in which the “stimulus resembles sensory feedback from the response” (p. 70). According to their IM compatibility theory, response codes for the IM compatible tasks can be activated directly and thus bypass the limited-capacity central stage.

Lien, Proctor, and Allen (2002)

In the three decades since Greenwald and Shulman’s (1973) study, their conclusion has been widely cited, but rarely questioned. Lien, Proctor, and Allen (2002), however, recently questioned Greenwald and Shulman’s conclusion for three major reasons. First, Greenwald and Shulman’s conclusion was oversimplified. When RTs were averaged over the two tasks, the PRP effect was relatively small. However, when the PRP effect was measured in the standard way (short-SOA Task-2 RT minus long-SOA Task-2 RT), as in most PRP studies, results from Greenwald and Shulman’s two experiments were actually in conflict: A significant PRP effect of

89 ms was observed with two IM tasks in Experiment 1 but little or no PRP effect was observed in Experiment 2. Greenwald and Shulman identified the instructions, “most often the 2 signals [S1 and S2] on each trial would be simultaneous” (p. 73), as being the crucial methodological factor differentiating their Experiment 2 from Experiment 1. However, their final conclusion that, “the PRP effect is eliminated when both tasks are IM compatible” (p. 74), did not acknowledge the importance of particular instructions. Second, Lien et al. failed to replicate Greenwald and Shulman’s results. All four of Lien et al.’s experiments showed a significant PRP effect with two IM compatible tasks, even when the method of Greenwald and Shulman’s Experiment 2 was directly replicated. Third, Greenwald and Shulman’s IM compatibility theory is inconsistent with the finding that the PRP effect is evident when only one of the two tasks is IM compatible. Greenwald and Shulman proposed that dual-task interference is primarily due to the overloading of central operations and that these central operations are bypassed for IM compatible tasks. If so, the IM compatibility theory seems to imply that the PRP effect should be absent whenever either task alone is IM compatible, even if the other is not. Contrary to this implication, Greenwald and Shulman’s own experiments, as well as Lien et al.’s replications, unambiguously showed a PRP effect when one task was IM compatible and the other was not.

Greenwald (2003)

Recently, Greenwald (2003) reiterated his position that perfect timesharing does occur with two IM compatible tasks. He suggested that Lien et al.’s (2002) non-replication of Greenwald and Shulman (1973) might be due to one or more of three differences in procedure. He also conducted two new experiments, which he interpreted as evidence for one of the procedural differences being crucial for enabling perfect timesharing. Below, we first describe the three procedural differences cited by Greenwald and explain why it is unlikely that they

played a critical role in Lien et al.’s non-replication. We then discuss the results of Greenwald’s two new experiments and argue that they still do not provide strong evidence for “perfect timesharing” with two IM compatible tasks.

Three Procedural Differences Between Greenwald and Shulman (1973) and Lien et al. (2002) Greenwald (2003) contended that three procedural details might explain the deviations from perfect timesharing observed in Lien et al.’s (2002) experiments. First, he argued that Lien et al.’s task – a left/right movement of the joystick to a left/right arrow – may not have been IM compatible. Because participants grasped the joystick handle with their dominant hand and placed their other hand on the base of the joystick to stabilize it, he argued that, “the non-dominant hand’s role in this coordination opposed the IM-compatible direction-plus-position cue”. We argue, however, that response selection for the joystick movement in Lien et al.’s study involved selecting a left-right action made by the dominant hand; the non-dominant hand merely prevented any movement of the apparatus. Studies of stimulus-response compatibility effects have consistently found that responses are coded in terms of response goals (e.g., move the joystick left or right), defined by task instructions, rather than effectors, such as hands (e.g., Guiard, 1983; Hommel, 1993). Thus, regardless of whether, or how, the two hands were coordinated in Lien et al.’s study, the response goal was simply to move the joystick to the direction that corresponded to the arrow direction/position. Moreover, when Lien, McCann, Ruthruff, and Proctor (2003) used an immoveable joystick, so that only the dominant hand response was involved, a substantial PRP effect with two IM compatible tasks was still found. Hence, Lien et al.’s (2002) non-replication was not due to their participants’ stabilizing the joystick with the non-dominant hand.

Second, Greenwald (2003) claimed that, “unlike other studies that have obtained perfect

timesharing, LP&A’s [Lien, Proctor, and Allen’s] procedure did not use regularly spaced trials” (p. 6), which “may have prevented their subjects from preparing optimally for the timeshared task combinations” (p. 7). However, we see no reason why it is necessary to use a fixed time between stimulus presentations. In fact, this procedure has the potentially negative consequence that a relatively slow response on one trial will result in a relatively short preparation interval for the next trial. Arguably, it makes more sense to use a constant response-stimulus-interval (RSI), so that preparation time will be constant. Indeed, the latter procedure has been adopted by the overwhelming majority of modern cognitive psychology experiments, including Lien et al. (2002), where a constant RSI of 2 seconds was used1.

Third, Greenwald (2003) objected that the instructions used by Lien et al. (2002) were different from those of Greenwald and Shulman (1973). Greenwald and Shulman contended that the crucial factor distinguishing their Experiment 2 from Experiment 1 was the instructions “The Ss [subjects] were informed that most often the 2 signals on each trial would be simultaneous and were not given any expectation that one signal might reliably precede the other” (p. 73). Lien et al. were aware of this point and thus attempted to duplicate Greenwald and Shulman’s instructions as closely as possible. Nevertheless, Greenwald suggested that Lien et al. omitted a crucial instruction that was not mentioned in Greenwald and Shulman’s methods: “To the best of the author’s memory, however, G&S’s instructions for their Experiment 2 not only stressed the simultaneous occurrence of the stimuli but also encouraged subjects to respond both rapidly and simultaneously to the simultaneous stimuli” (p. 7). Given that these instructions were not mentioned in the original article, Lien et al. can hardly be held accountable for failing to replicate them. Moreover, we argue that Greenwald’s new experiments, summarized below, do not provide strong evidence that these instructions produce perfect timesharing.

Greenwald’s (2003) New Experiments

To further support his IM compatibility theory, Greenwald (2003) presented two new experiments, each of which used two IM compatible tasks. Experiment 1 included single-task blocks, 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks, and 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks with a fixed trial spacing (2 seconds for single-task blocks and 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks; 3 seconds for 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks). To demonstrate the importance of instructions, he compared the Greenwald and Shulman (GS) condition, which stressed speed and simultaneous responding (i.e., “YOU ARE TO MAKE TWO RESPONSES AT THE SAME TIME”), with the Lien, Proctor, and Allen (LPA) condition, which emphasized speed and accuracy equally (i.e., “respond to each task as quickly and accurately as you can”)2. We have summarized his results in Table 1. In both instruction conditions, RTs were slower in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks than in the single-task blocks. Comparing the performance between the 0-ms and 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks, however, Greenwald claimed that results from the GS condition replicated Greenwald and Shulman’s (1973) earlier finding of “perfect timesharing”, and results from the LPA condition replicated Lien et al.’s (2002) finding of a substantial PRP effect.

Greenwald (2003) further argued that neither the pure single-task blocks nor the 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks in Experiment 1 constitute appropriate control conditions for measuring dual-task interference. He contended that the extra response preparation for the dual-task trials compared to the single-task trials “constitutes a burden that will increase latencies”, and that the switching from Task 1 to Task 2 in the 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks would “produce slowed responding on the second task” (for an opposite view, see Lien, Schweickert, & Proctor, 2003). In Experiment 2, therefore, he used a mixed-task control condition, in which the two kinds of single-task trials (Task 1 alone or Task 2 alone) were mixed randomly within blocks. In this

control condition, each relevant stimulus was accompanied by an irrelevant “accessory” stimulus in the other modality (a click accompanied the visual Task 1 and three asterisks accompanied the auditory Task 2). Experiment 2 adopted (approximately) the GS instructions of Experiment 1 and included conditions where two non-IM compatible tasks were used. For the two IM-compatible tasks condition, RTs were faster in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks (which Greenwald called “timeshared blocks”) than in the mixed-task control blocks. For the two non-IM compatible tasks condition, however, RTs were slower in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks than in the mixed-task control blocks. Greenwald concluded that these results confirm perfect timesharing with two IM compatible tasks.

We argue that these two experiments still do not provide strong evidence for perfect timesharing with two IM compatible tasks for reasons to be discussed below. First, although Greenwald (2003) suggested that proper instructions are the key to enabling perfect timesharing, we argue that changing instructions merely shifts speed-accuracy criteria. Second, although the PRP effect was absent on RT in the GS condition of Experiment 1, a PRP effect was present on error rates. Finally, we argue that relatively small PRP effects do not necessarily indicate that the central bottleneck has been bypassed.

Are Instructions the Key that Unlocks the Door to Perfect Timesharing? Greenwald (2003) suggested that specific instructions are necessary to enable perfect timesharing. We argue, however, that the instruction differences between the GS and LPA conditions might merely have shifted speed-accuracy criteria. At the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks, for instance, Task 1 RT was faster in the GS condition (291 ms) than in the LPA condition (350 ms), but, the error rate was 4 times higher in the GS condition (3.57%) than in the LPA condition (0.88%). Similarly, Task 2 RT was faster in the GS condition (410 ms) than in the LPA condition (534

ms), but, the error rate was much higher in the GS condition (13.41%) than in the LPA condition (10.96%)3.

The likely presence of a speed-accuracy criterion shift between the GS and LPA conditions at the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks has two implications. First, if there is a bottleneck, then the speedup in RTs should reduce the PRP effect (see below for detailed discussion of this point). Thus, the corresponding reduction of the PRP effect in the GS condition is not surprising. Second, when speed is emphasized, participants might attempt to maintain a constant speed across blocks, causing any differences in difficulty between blocks to show up primarily on error rate. This situation is opposite to what is normally assumed for the traditional RT paradigm, where it is assumed that participants try to maintain a constant error rate across conditions, and the effect of processing difficulty show up primarily on RT (see Pachella, 1974; Wickelgren, 1977).

Was the PRP Effect Eliminated? In Greenwald’s (2003) Experiment 1, the GS instructions in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks emphasized speed and simultaneous responding, which might have led to the understanding that accuracy is not important. Furthermore, only one of the two responses was collected on each trial in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks (due to software restrictions, see his footnote 4), and then the feedback message “error” was based only on that response. Thus, when participants made an error to one task, they often did not receive the error message. The frequent absence of error feedback, combined with strong speed emphasis, might have led participants to respond quickly at the cost of accuracy. Note that this software restriction did not affect the 1000-ms SOA blocks, where feedback was based on both responses within a trial. In addition, the GS instructions emphasized simultaneous responding for the two tasks in the 0-ms, but not the 1000-ms, SOA dual-task blocks; these instructions

might have further increased the emphasis on speed. These arguments suggest that the participants’ bias toward response speed was higher in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks than in the 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks.

Given the likelihood of a speed-accuracy tradeoff between blocks, both RT and error data should be considered in determining whether the PRP effect has been eliminated with two IM compatible tasks. Although there was no PRP effect on RT in the GS condition of Experiment 1, Task 1 error rate was 3 times higher in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks (3.57%) than in the 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks (1.17%). Similarly, Task 2 error rate was much higher in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks (13.41%) than in the 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks (10.31%). Even with Greenwald and Shulman’s (1973) measurement of the PRP effect, averaging the data for Task 1 and Task 2, the PRP effect on error rate was statistically significant in the GS condition. Greenwald (2003) downplayed these effects by noting that they were smaller and non-significant early in the experiment. Nevertheless, the error rate was higher in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks than in the 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks for all four phases of the experiment (see his Table 1).

A PRP effect on error rates might also have occurred in Experiment 2 of Greenwald (2003). Because of the lack of detailed error data, however, we are not able to evaluate this possibility. Furthermore, in contrast to Greenwald’s view, we argue that his mixed-task blocks do not provide an appropriate control condition for measuring dual-task interference. In his mixed-task blocks, there was uncertainty prior to each trial about what task would need to be performed. Also, because stimuli were presented in both modalities in the mixed-task blocks, participants had to determine which stimulus was relevant and which one was irrelevant and inhibition of the irrelevant stimulus might have been needed. Meanwhile, there was no task

uncertainty in the dual-task blocks and no need to inhibit an irrelevant stimulus. These advantages might have cancelled out a real disadvantage of having to perform two tasks at the same time. In fact, if one instead compares the dual-task blocks to the single-task blocks, there was significant dual-task interference for the visual-manual IM compatible task in Experiment 2. Consequently, neither experiment in Greenwald’s study provides unambiguous support for “perfect timesharing” with two IM compatible tasks.

Was the Central Bottleneck Bypassed? Do the small dual-task costs observed by Greenwald (2003) support the key assumption of IM compatibility theory that “the IM compatible tasks could bypass a limited-capacity response selection process [central bottleneck]” (p. 3; see also Greenwald & Shulman, 1973)? It has previously been noted that small dual-task costs can, under some circumstances, be obtained even when the central bottleneck still exists (e.g., Byrne & Anderson, 2001; Ruthruff, Johnston, Van Selst, Whitsell, & Remington, 2003). According to the central bottleneck model, the predicted PRP effect at the 0-ms SOA is given by 1A+1B-2A4 (where 1A and 1B refer to the perceptual and central processing stage of Task 1, respectively, and 2A refers to the perceptual processing stage of Task 2; Van Selst et al., 1999). Thus, there are two conditions leading to little or no PRP effect: (a) short stage durations for 1A and 1B, and (b) a long stage duration for 2A. Short stage durations for 1A and 1B are likely to occur when Task 1 is easy (e.g., with IM compatible tasks), as reflected in short RTs. Previous studies have provided evidence that when Task 1 is sufficiently short, the central bottleneck can become “latent”, producing little or no interference (Van Selst et al., 1999; Ruthruff et al., 2003). In addition, a small PRP effect is likely to occur when stimulus identification for Task 2 is time-consuming, resulting in a relatively long duration for stage 2A.

Both of the conditions (short 1A and 1B; long 2A) that enable the bottleneck to produce a

small PRP effect seem to be present in the GS condition of Greenwald (2003). As a concrete example, the bottleneck model could explain the small PRP effect as follows. In the 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks, the visual-manual task was presented as Task 1 and the auditory-vocal task as Task 2. Given that RTs were much faster for the visual-manual task (291 ms) than the auditory-vocal task (410 ms) in the 0-ms SOA dual-task blocks, it is reasonable to assume that participants performed central operations for two tasks in the same order as in the 1000-ms SOA dual-task blocks. Suppose, as seems reasonable, that the average combined duration of stages

1A and 1B is about 180 ms (leaving 111 ms for response execution). Further, suppose that the duration of stage 2A is about 200 ms. This estimate seems reasonable given that it took 200 ms to fully present the auditory sound (“A” or “B”) and that mean Task 2 RT was 410 ms. Under these durations, stage 1B would tend to finish before stage 2A; thus, this bottleneck stages would usually not conflict and little PRP effect should be expected. Although one could argue about the exact values of the relevant stage durations, it is clear that under certain plausible conditions little PRP effect would occur. Given that a plausible bottleneck model can account for Greenwald’s data, one cannot conclude that the bottleneck was bypassed, or in Greenwald’s words, “evaded or minimized” (p. 3), with two IM compatible tasks.

Conclusions

We argue that two of the three procedural differences (non-IM compatible task and variable trial spacing) suggested by Greenwald (2003) are unlikely to be responsible for Lien et al.’s (2002) non-replication. In fact, Greenwald’s Experiment 1 used two-IM compatible tasks and fixed trial spacing, yet confirmed Lien et al.’s finding of a PRP effect with the LPA instructions. This finding also provides converging evidence that the use of two IM compatible tasks is not sufficient to eliminate the PRP effect. Even Greenwald agrees that perfect

timesharing does not occur unless the instructions stress speed and simultaneous responding. We agree that instructions matter, but only because they cause a shift in the criterion for speed versus accuracy. Furthermore, we argue that the small PRP effects in Greenwald’s study do not necessarily indicate that the central bottleneck was bypassed with two IM compatible tasks. We describe how a simple and plausible central bottleneck model can easily explain small PRP effects when Task 1 RT is unusually short.

Some insight into the present debate is provided by Greenwald, Pratkanis, Leippe, and Baumgardner’s (1986) arguments against theory-based research strategies as contrasted with result-centered research strategies. They argued, “Confirmation bias is an expectable product of theory-centered research strategies” (p. 216), noting that “researchers display confirmation bias when they persevere by revising procedures until obtaining a theory-predicted result” (p. 216). According to Greenwald et al., “This strategy produces findings that are overgeneralized in avoidable ways” (p. 216), because theorists overlook the experimental modifications needed to produce the theory-predicted result. Consequently, they noted, “Although the conclusions from such research need to be qualified by reference to the tried-and-abandoned procedures, those conclusions are often stated only in the more general terms of the guiding theory” (p. 220). We contend that overgeneralization with respect to stating conclusions in the general terms of IM compatibility theory occurred with respect to Greenwald and Shulman’s (1973) original findings. Such overgeneralization will continue to occur if the central message of Greenwald’s (2003) study, as implied in the Conclusion of his article, is that the “perfect timesharing” prediction of IM compatibility theory has been confirmed. IM compatibility is only a subset of the conditions that reduce dual-task interference, quite possibly for reasons very different from those suggested by IM compatibility theory.

References

Brebner, J. (1977). The search for exceptions to the psychological refractory period. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 63-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108, 847-869.

Greenwald, A. G. (2003). On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93, 216-229.

Greenwald, A. G., & Shulman, H. G. (1973). On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 70-76.

Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 331-342.

Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270-279.

Lien, M.-C., McCann, R. S., Ruthruff, E., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Processing limitations in dual-task performance: Can the central bottleneck be bypassed with ideomotor compatible tasks? Manuscript is in preparation.

Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212-238.

Lien, M.-C., Proctor, R. W., & Allen, P. A. (2002). Ideomotor compatibility in the

psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 396-409.

Lien, M.-C., Schweickert, R., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Task switch and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, XXX-XXX.

Pachella, R. G. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In B. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing (pp. 14-82). Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.

Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358-377.

Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance.

In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155-189). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3-21.

Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 280-289.

Smith, M. C. (1967). Stimulus-response compatibility and parallel response selection. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 21, 496-503.

Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception

and Performance, 25, 1268-1283.

Wickelgren, W. A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 41, 67-85.

Authors Note

Mei-Ching Lien, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center. Robert W. Proctor, Department of Psychological Science, Purdue University. Eric Ruthruff, NASA Ames Research Center.

This research was supported by a fellowship from the National Research Council and by funding from the Psychological and Physiological Stressors and Factors Project of NASA’s Airspace Systems Program. We thank Tony Greenwald, Wilfried Kunde, and Iring Koch for their helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.We also thank Jim Johnston, Roger Remington, and Rob McCann for valuable discussions. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Mei-Ching Lien at Mail Stop 262-4, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California 94035. Electronic mail may be sent to mclien@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/e413418924.html,.

Footnotes

1. In Lien, Proctor, and Allen (2002), the accuracy of participants’ vocal responses for each trial

was entered into the computer by the experimenter as quickly as possible. The feedback

message for the two tasks was then presented for 1 second, followed 1 second later by the stimulus for the next trial.

2. The full instructions for both the GS and LPA conditions in Greenwald’s (2003) Experiment

1 were as follows.

In the LPA condition, the following instructions were presented in introductory instructions for the experiment: “During this experiment sometimes tasks will be presented simultaneously.

Your job is to respond to each task as quickly and accurately as you can. Do not wait for the other task to appear. Remember that speed and accuracy are important.” A reminder that “speed and accuracy are equally important” was provided before each block of trials for all single-task and dual-task conditions.

In the GS condition, first, the preliminary instructions were “Throughout this experiment, it is important for you to respond as rapidly as you possibly can while maintaining a high rate of accuracy.” Second, prior to each block of trials, subjects were reminded to respond “very rapidly”. And, third, in the dual-task ISI=0 [SOA=0] condition the instructions prior to each block additionally reminded subjects “YOU ARE TO MAKE TWO RESPONSES AT THE SAME TIME” (capitalized, as shown) (pp. 11-12).

3. Greenwald (2003) notes that his automated voice recognition made two kinds of errors.

First, “the vocal response received an unidentifiable code on 15.1% of vocal response trials”

(p. 12). These “unidentified responses were treated as correct in the analyses that were

reported” (personal communication from T. G. Greenwald, March 27, 2003). Second, he notes that many of the errors reported by the voice recognition software were actually correct

responses. Because of these issues, it is difficult to determine actual error rate for this task.

4. The PRP equation is based on the assumption that a bottleneck occurs on every trial at the 0-

ms SOA, but never at the long SOA.

Table 1.

Mean Response Times in ms (Proportion of Errors in Parenthesis) for Task 1, Task 2, and the Average of Task 1 and Task 2 in Greenwald’s (2003) Experiment 1 as a Function of Block

Types (Single-Task Block, 0-ms SOA Dual-Task Block, and 1000-ms SOA Dual-Task Block), and Instruction Conditions. SOA: stimulus-onset asynchrony.

Greenwald and Shulman’s Condition Lien, Proctor, and Allen’s Condition

0-ms SOA Dual-Task 1000-ms SOA

Dual-Task

Single

Task

PRP

Effect

0-ms SOA

Dual-Task

1000-ms SOA

Dual-Task

Single

Task

PRP

Effect

Task 1

291

(3.57)

290

(1.17)

269

(2.85)

350

(0.88)

340

(1.29)

309

(2.3)

Task 2

410

(13.41)

417

(10.31)

398

(8.99)

-6

(3.1)

534

(10.96)

493

(10.17)

504

(8.64)

43*

(0.79)

Average

351

(8.49)

353

(5.75)

333

(5.92)

-2

(2.74*)

442

(4.60)

416

(5.74)

406

(5.47)

27*

(-1.14)

Note: * the p value was significant at .05 level. We thank Tony Greenwald for providing these data.

关于南京市职工个人政策性住房贷款办法有关问题的

关于南京市职工个人政策性住房贷款办法有关问题的

关于《南京市职工个人政策性住房贷款办法》有关问题的说明 关于《南京市职工个人政策性住房贷款办法》有关问题的说明 为认真贯彻执行《南京市职工个人政策性住房贷款办法》（以下简称"办法"）, 规范贷款管理，统一政策标准，特对有关问题说明如下： 一、承办银行 根据国务院《住房公积金管理条例》和市政府有关批示精神，在中国人民银行南京分行营业管理部和南京市住房公积金管理中心（以下简称"管理中心"）联合审批，经市住房公积金管理委员会批准，由"管理中心"委托工、农、中、建、交、商业、中信七家银行承办职工个人政策性住房贷款业务，职工贷款时可选择七家银行中的任何一家银行所指定的网点申请贷款。 二、贷款对象 （一）、贷款范围问题 根据中国人民银行《个人住房贷款管理办法》和南京市的实际情况，对建造自住住房的职工，暂不列入贷款范围。 （二）、户口证明问题 借款人必须具有南京市城镇常住户口（含蓝印户口）或由南京市公安机关出具的"暂住证"；市属各县的，须具有当地公安机关出具的"户籍证明"和南京市公安机关出具的"暂住证"。 （三）、缴存年月问题 借款人所在单位属公积金新开户且连续缴存不足6个月的，单位连续欠缴公积金超过3个月的，办理缓缴手续1年及1年以上的，均不予贷款。 （四）、托管人员问题 由"管理中心"委托"市人才服务中心"代为扣缴公积金的职工，在申请贷款时须凭"市人才服务中心"出具的连续缴存半年以上的《缴存证明》，到"管理中心"办理贷前审批手续。

（五）省直、铁路系统人员问题 借款人配偶方若在省级机关、铁路住房公积金管理分中心缴存公积金，在申请贷款时须凭"建行江苏省分行直属支行"、铁路系统公积金缴存行出具的《公积金缴存证明》，到承办银行办理贷款手续，并暂按夫妻双方可贷额度办理。 （六）共有产权问题 如职工所购房屋为共有产权的，在申请贷款时，除须办理正常贷款手续外，所涉及的共有产权人及其配偶还须办理有关公证和抵押手续。 三、贷款条件 （一）购房手续问题 借款人具有合法有效的《买卖契约》，属"公有住房"的还须提供《职工购买公有住房申请表》和《南京市公有住房出售审批表》；属集资建房的，借款人所在单位还须提供《工程投资进度证明》、《房屋权属登记备案证明》、《国有土地使用证》或《土地使用权属证明》。 （二）借款人具有不少于购房总价20%的《付款证明》，且购房总价=首付款金额+贷款金额（政策性+商业性）+房款差额；首付款与房款差额须具有《付款证明》。 四、担保方式 目前只开展抵押担保方式 1、抵押范围 （1）用借款人所购房产抵押的，开发商须与"管理中心"签订《南京市住房公积金贷款按揭协议书》。 （2）借款人所购房产暂不具备抵押条件的，可用他人房产抵押，贷款银行认为需要评估的，应由"管理中心"认可的评估机构进行评估后，方可抵押。 2、抵押率 为房产评估值的70%，并不得将剩余房产价值再另作抵押。

公司地址变更办理流程

一、公司地址变更的具体流程： 1、领取《公司变更登记申请表》（工商局办证大厅窗口领取） 2、变更营业执照（填写公司变更表格，加盖公章，整理章程修正案、股东会决议、房 屋租赁合同原件、公司营业执照正副本原件、注册地址房产证及房主身份证复印件到工商局办证大厅办理，如果注册地址的房产为单位所有，那么要在房产证及房屋租赁合同上加盖产权单位公章） 3、变更组织机构代码证（填写企业代码证变更表格，加盖公章，整理公司变更通知书、 营业执照副本复印件、企业法人身份证复印件、老的代码证原件到质量技术监督局办理） 4、变更税务登记证（拿着税务变更通知单到税务局办理） 5、变更银行信息（拿着银行变更通知单基本户开户银行办理） 二、公司地址变更所需资料： 1、《公司变更登记申请表》 2、公司章程修正案（全体股东签字、盖公章） 3、股东会决议（全体股东签字、盖公章） 4、公司新注册地址的房产证及房主身份证复印件（提供原件给工商局核对） 6、公司执照正副本（原件） 7、全体股东身份证复印件（原件核对） 8、房屋租赁合同（原件） 三、公司地址变更完成时间： 1、公司营业执照变更五个工作日 2、组织机构代码变更三个工作日 3、国地税登记证变更五个工作日（有时候税务局会临时通知时间） 4、开户银行信息变更五个工作日 一、公司地址变更的流程：营业执照变更---组织机构代码证变更---税务登记证变更---银行开户许可证变更 二、地址变更所需材料： 1、委托书 2、公司变更登记申请书2份 3、公司章程修正案 4、公司股东会决议 5、公司新注册地点的租赁合同 6、公司新注册地点的产权证的复印件及其相关的产权证明 7、营业执照的正、副本原件 8、公司章程 三、变更的方式： 在同一区内变更 一、公司经营地址变更登记手续需要提交工商局的材料如下： 1、公司营业执照正、副本原件 2、公司新的注册地点的租赁合同、以及产权证明

南京市人力资源和社会保障局、南京市财政局、人行南京分行营管部

南京市人力资源和社会保障局、南京市财政局、人行南京分行营管部关于印发《南京市劳动密集型小企业贷款贴息操作 办法》的通知 【法规类别】贷款 【发文字号】宁人社规[2011]11号 【发布部门】南京市人力资源和社会保障局南京市财政局中国人民银行南京分行 【发布日期】2011.07.20 【实施日期】2011.07.20 【时效性】现行有效 【效力级别】地方规范性文件 南京市人力资源和社会保障局、南京市财政局、人行南京分行营管部关于印发《南京市 劳动密集型小企业贷款贴息操作办法》的通知 （宁人社规〔2011〕11号） 各区县人力资源和社会保障局、财政局，各存款类金融机构： 为推动我市劳动密集型小企业贷款发放工作，加大创业实体带动就业的金融扶持力度，现将《南京市劳动密集型小企业贷款贴息操作办法》印发给你们，请遵照执行。 南京市人力资源和社会保障局 南京市财政局

人行南京分行营管部 二О一一年七月二十日 南京市劳动密集型小企业贷款贴息操作办法 为进一步促进南京市就业创业工作，促进以创业带动就业，鼓励金融机构对符合条件的劳动密集型小企业给予信贷支持，根据《省政府办公厅转发人民银行南京分行等部门关于进一步改进小额担保贷款管理实施意见的通知》（苏政办发[2009]35号）精神，结合南京市实际情况，制定本办法。 一、贴息范围 南京市各存款类金融机构对取得贷款、且吸纳失业人员就业达到规定比例的劳动密集型小企业。 二、贴息条件 （一）贷款企业工商注册、经营地均在南京市原十城区范围，经营项目符合国家法律法规政策的规定，国家限制性行业（包括建筑业、娱乐业以及广告业、桑拿、按摩、网吧、氧吧等）除外。 （二）企业规模属于国家规定的小企业范畴。（当前参照《关于印发中小企业划型标准规定的通知》工倍部联企业[2011]300号。 （三）申贷前12个月内，企业招用持《就业和失业登记证》的失业人员数达到申贷时企业在职人员总数的30%以上（超过100人的企业达15%），并与其签订1年以上劳动合同，依法缴纳社会保险费。申请贴息时，新招用人员中实际用工满1年以上的人数保持在当时职工总数30%以上（超过100人的企业达15%）。

2019年江苏省金融运行报告

２０１９年江苏省金融运行报告

[内容摘要] 2018年，面对国内外严峻复杂的经济环境，江苏省认真贯彻落实党中央国务院决策部署，坚持稳中求进工作总基调，全力推动经济结构改革与高质量发展。 全省经济在较高的发展水平上持续增长。一是内需增长稳定，外需规模持续增长。全年实现地区生产总值92595亿元，同比增长6.7%。全省实现社会消费品零售总额33230亿元，比上年增长7.9%。固定资产投资增长5.5%，其中工业技术改造投资增长10.7%，高新技术产业投资增长15.2%，房地产投资增长14.1%。全年实现出口26658亿元，同比增长8.4%，其中对“一带一路”沿线国家出口保持较快增长，出口额6459.6亿元，增长8.9%。全省实际使用外资255.9亿美元，增长1.8%。二是三次产业比重深入优化，结构调整扎实推进。江苏省三次产业增加值比例调整为4.5∶44.5∶51，第三产业增加值占GDP比重比上年提高0.7个百分点，产业结构继续向“三二一”的现代产业构架稳步优化。全省实现规模以上工业增加值同比增长5.1%，其中，全省高技术产业、装备制造业增加值比上年分别增长11.1%和8%。全省压减钢铁产能80万吨、水泥产能210万吨、平板玻璃产能660万重量箱，去产能稳步推进。三是消费价格温和上涨，生产价格涨幅下降。全省居民消费价格同比上涨2.3%，高于上年同期0.6个百分点，连续7年保持在3%以下的较低水平。全省工业生产者出厂价格比上年上涨2.8%，涨幅比上年下降2个百分点；工业生产者购进价格上涨4.6%，涨幅缩小5.1个百分点。四是财政收入稳定增长，财政支出有所回升。江苏省共完成一般公共预算收入8630亿元，同口径增长5.6%。一般公共预算支出11658.2亿元，同比增长9.8%，积极财政力度进一步加大，其中教育支出和医疗卫生支出同比分别增长3.9%和7.1%，社会保障和就业支出、住房保障支出同比分别增长25.5%和22.2%。 全省金融运行取得新的成绩，围绕经济发展大局，金融投入继续保持了总量适度、结构优化的趋势。多层次资本市场实现新突破，直接债务融资实现“七连冠”。金融改革持续深化，金融基础设施不断完善，服务社会经济发展能力持续提升。一是银行业经营稳健，信贷规模适度增长。全省金融机构全省金融机构本外币存款余额为14.42万亿元，同比增长7.01%，增速同比上升0.2个百分点。全省本外币各 1

金融支持制造业工作简报

金融支持制造业工作简报 第9期 中国人民银行扬州市中心支行2017年12月19日 本期导读 ▲人民银行宝应县支行扎实推动输变电装备产业发展 ▲工商银行扬州分行多举措支持制造业发展 ▲招商银行扬州分行回归本源服务实体经济 ▲扬州农商行以创新为引领支持高端装备制造业 1 / 9

人民银行宝应县支行 扎实推动输变电装备产业发展 为加大对实体经济企业的支持力度，2017年以来，人民银行宝应县支行围绕地方主导产业，突出输变电装备产业，开展了多渠道、多层次金融服务，取得了较显著的成效。 一是摸底信贷需求，找准信贷工作着力点。宝应县是江苏省输变电装备产业制造基地，拥有以宝胜集团为龙头的输变电装备企业300多家，其中，规模以上企业86家。2017年4月份，人民银行宝应县支行联合县经信委深入开展输变电装备企业资金需求调查，筛选出项目贷款和流动资金贷款需求信息40多条、金额20多亿元，并及时向银行进行了发布，推动做好银企对接。 二是加大市场培育，挖掘有效信贷需求。2017年，人民银行宝应县支行组织开展了“千户企业大走访”活动，先后走访了中航宝胜集团、迅达电磁线、宝源高新等企业，现场了解企业经营状况。在全县范围内建立了输变电装备产业重点支持企业名录，组织银行开展信贷客户培植工作，深化金融帮办，挖掘信贷需求潜力。通过定期召开联席会议、建立行长微信群等渠道及时发布企业融资需求信息，组织银行做好金融服务。 三是加强银企对接，为输变电装备产业输血。2017年，人民银行宝应县支行共组织银政企对接活动7场次，现场参加的输变电装备产业企业达70多家。同时，通过e贷网提供线上、线下立体化金融 2 / 9

公司地址变更申请书

公司地址变更申请书 公司地址变更申请书 公司地址变更申请书 篇一: 公司地址变更申请南通洛克流体设备有限公司所变更申请书: 我单位位于南通市港闸区陈桥乡河口村11组，由于经营的需要，现欲搬到南通市通州区平潮镇颜港村3组。现申请将营业执照证上的经营地址进行相应变更，特此申请，望批准为盼。申请人:______ ______ 年____ 月____ 日篇二: 地址变更申请书地址变更申请书申请书 ***(单位): 我单位位于**街(路)**号，由于经营(其他原因)需要，现欲搬到**街(路)**号。现申请将**证上的经营地址进行相应变更，请给予办理为感。申请人: ***** 年月日赵王婧仪 201X-05-03 篇三: 变更地址申请书地址变更申请书商务局: **典当有限公司于201*年4月10日领取典当经营许可证书，典当经营许可证书的企业地址为: **。我公司于201*年4月17日领取了营业执照，营业执照的住所为: *。由于企业经营的需要，现欲变更经营地址，现申请将企业原地址变更为: *，请贵局予以批准为盼。特此申请～申请人: 201*年8月12日篇四: 申请书(变更注册地址范例) 医疗器械经营企业变更所需提交形式材料及范例

(一)基本材料: 1、企业变更《医疗器械经营企业许可证》的申请书(见范例一); 2、《医疗器械经营企业许可证》变更申请表(一式两份，必须打印，不得手写，其余材料均提交一份)(见范例二); 3、《医疗器械经营企业许可证》正、本原件(范例略); 4、所提交材料真实性的自我保证声明(见范例三); (二)必备材料: 1、变更质量管理人员的，提交基本材料的同时提交新任质量管理人员的身份 证(范例略)、学历证书或者职称证书复印件(范例略); 2、变更企业注册地址的，提交基本材料的同时提交变更后地址的产权证明(范例略)或者租赁协议复印件(见范例四)、地理位臵图(见范例五)、平面图(见范例六)及存储条件说明(见范例七); 3、变更经营范围的，提交基本材料的同时提交拟经营产品注册证的复印件(范例略)及相应存储条件的说明(范例略); 4、变更仓库地址的，提交基本材料的同时提交变更后仓库地址的产权证明(范例略)或者租赁协议复印件(见范例四)、地理位臵图(见范例五)、平面图(见范例六)及存储条件说明(见范例七); 5、变更企业名称需提供已变更的《营业执照》复印件(范例略)或《企业核名 通知书》(范例略); 6、变更法人、负责人的，提交基本材料的同时提交已变更的《营业执照》复 印件(范例略)。范例一: 申请书黑龙江省食品药品监督管理局:

南京市人力资源和社会保障局、市财政局、市妇女联合会、人行南京

南京市人力资源和社会保障局、市财政局、市妇女联合会、人行南京分行营管部关于进一步做好创业小额担保贷款工作 的通知 【法规类别】信用证服务及担保贷款 【发文字号】宁人社规[2010]7号 【发布部门】南京市人力资源和社会保障局南京市财政局南京市妇女联合会中国人民银行南京分行 【发布日期】2010.07.30 【实施日期】2010.07.30 【时效性】现行有效 【效力级别】地方规范性文件 南京市人力资源和社会保障局、市财政局、市妇女联合会、人行南京分行营管部关于进 一步做好创业小额担保贷款工作的通知 （宁人社规〔2010〕7号） 各区县人力资源和社会保障局、财政局、妇联，人行南京各支行： 为进一步贯彻落实国家和省、市有关创业信贷扶持政策，建设完善城乡统筹的创业政策体系和服务体系，鼓励劳动者自主创业，以创业带动就业，现就进一步做好我市创业小额担保贷款的有关工作通知如下： 一、调整创业小额担保贷款贴息方式。

自2010年7月1日起，个人创业及合伙经营、组织就业创业的，新申请的创业小额担保贷款采取还本付息后贴息的方式。贷款人在按时还本付息后，凭银行结算单填报《贴息审批表》，到区县人力资源和社会保障部门办理贴息手续。原十城区人力资源和社会保障部门初审后，将贴息汇总表报至市人力资源和社会保障局，经人力资源和社会保障局会同市财政局核定后，市财政局将贴息资金拨付至有关银行，银行应及时拨付至贷款人在该行开立的贷款账户。原十城区外的区县参照上述办法执行，并在每季度末将贷款贴息情况报至市人力资源和社会保障局备案。 二、完善创业小额担保贷款额度核定和二次贷款贴息工作。 （一）合伙经营或组织起来就业的创业小额担保贷款额度原则上不超过创业实体的注册资金。 （二）创业小额担保贷款享受贴息政策不超过两次，本通知发布前发生的贷款次数追溯认定。

中国人民银行南京分行、江苏省财政厅、江苏省人民政府金融工作办

中国人民银行南京分行、江苏省财政厅、江苏省人民政府金融工作办公室关于印发《江苏省直接债务融资引导办法》的 通知 【法规类别】经贸融资与租赁 【发文字号】南银发[2010]169号 【发布部门】中国人民银行南京分行江苏省财政厅江苏省人民政府金融工作办公室 【发布日期】2010.12.14 【实施日期】2010.01.01 【时效性】失效 【效力级别】地方规范性文件 【失效依据】江苏省财政厅关于印发《江苏省直接债务融资引导奖励资金管理办法》的通知 中国人民银行南京分行、江苏省财政厅、江苏省人民政府金融工作办公室关于印发《江 苏省直接债务融资引导办法》的通知 （南银发[2010]169号） 人民银行南京分行营业管理部、江苏省各市中心支行，各市、县财政局，各市金融工作办公室，国家开发银行江苏省分行、进出口银行南京分行，各国有商业银行江苏省分行、股份制商业银行南京分行，南京银行，北京银行南京分行、上海银行南京分行：为鼓励金融机构加大对江苏省企业在银行间债券市场发行非金融企业债务融资工具的

支持力度，显著提高直接融资比重，推进江苏金融强省建设，促进我省经济又好又快发展，中国人民银行南京分行、江苏省财政厅、江苏省金融办共同研究制定了《江苏省直接债务融资引导办法》，现印发给你们，请遵照执行。各地可根据当地实际情况，安排配套政策。 二0一0年十二月十四日 附件 江苏省直接债务融资引导办法 第一章总则 第一条为积极发挥财政杠杆对金融业发展的撬动作用，鼓励和引导金融机构加大对江苏省非金融企业（以下简称“企业”）在银行间债券市场发行债务融资工具的支持力度，显著提高直接融资比重，促进我省经济又好又快发展，特制订本办法。 第二条本办法所称债务融资工具，是指金融机构按照《银行间债券市场非金融企业债务融资工具管理办法》，为江苏省企业主承销、约定在一定期限内还本付息的有价证券。 第二章引导奖励范围与标准

公司地址变更申请书范文3篇

公司地址变更申请书范文3篇 第一步:申请人持相关材料向市政务服务中心工商局窗口提出申请，经受理审查员初审通过，开具《受理通知书》或者《申请材料接收单》;不符合受理条件的，在当场或者5个工作日内一次性告知申请人应当补正的全部材料(出具告知单)。 第二步:对申请人申请材料齐全、符合法定形式的，当场作出是否准予登记的决定并出具《登记决定通知书》;需要对申请材料的实质内容进行核实的，出具《企业登记材料需要核实事项告知书》，在10个工作日内作出核准或者驳回申请的决定。 第三步:在1个工作日内(申请材料的实质内容需核实的除外)，申请人可以凭《登记决定通知书》到发照窗口换发《企业法人营业执照》。 四、申请材料: (1)公司法定代表人签署的《公司变更登记申请书》(公司加盖公章); (2)公司签署的《指定代表或者共同委托代理人的证明》(公司加盖公章)及指定代表或委托代理人身份证复印件(本人签字)，应标明具体委托事项、被委托人的权限、委托 期限; (3)公司章程修正案(公司法定代表人签署); (4)法律、行政法规和国务院决定规定变更名称必须报经有关部门批准的，提交有关部门的批准文件或者许可证书复印件; (5)公司《企业法人营业执照》副本。 (6)《企业名称变更核准通知书》。

公司变更名称，应当向其公司登记机关提出申请，申请名称超出其公司登记机关管辖权限的，由其公司登记机关向有该名称登记权的公司登记机关申报。 注:依照《公司法》、《公司登记管理条例》设立的公司申请名称变更适用。 以上各项未注明提交复印件的，应当提交原件;提交复印件的，应由公司加盖公章并署明与原件一致。   公司地址变更申请书范文1 XXXX工商局: 我单位位于xx街(路)xx号，由于经营(其他原因)需要，现欲搬到xx街(路)xx 号。现申请将xx证上的经营地址进行相应变更，请给予办理为感。 申请人:xxx 时间:20xx年x月x日 公司地址变更申请书范文2 你局核准注册的第__ 号__商标，因注册人名称/地址已由________，变更为________，现申请变更。 申请人:______(盖章) 地址:______ 年月日 公司地址变更申请书范文3 XX工商局: 我单位位于南通市港闸区陈桥乡河口村11组，由于经营的需要，现欲搬到南通市通州区平潮镇颜港村3组。现申请将营业执照证上的经营地址进行相应变更，特此申请，望批准为盼。 申请人:xxxx设备有限公司 时间:20xx年x月x日

江苏省银行业金融机构执行人民银行政策情况评价办法(南银发【2010】3号)

关于印发《江苏省银行业金融机构执行人民银行政策情况评价办法（试行）》的通知 各政策性银行江苏省（南京）分行、国有商业银行江苏省分行、股份制商业银行南京分行，江苏银行，南京银行，邮政储蓄银行江苏省分行，上海银行南京分行，宁波银行南京分行，浙江稠州商业银行南京分行，徽商银行南京分行：为保障人民银行、国家外汇管理局政策规定的全面正确执行，促进江苏省金融业稳健高效运行，推动江苏经济金融健康发展，我分行研究制定了《江苏省银行业金融机构执行人民银行政策情况评价办法（试行）》，现印发给你们，请各单位遵照执行。 附件：江苏省银行业金融机构执行人民银行政策情况评价办法（试行） 二○一○年一月六日

附件 江苏省银行业金融机构执行人民银行政策 情况评价办法（试行） 第一章总则 第一条为保障人民银行、国家外汇管理局政策规定的全面正确执行，促进江苏省金融业稳健高效运行和经济金融健康发展，根据《中国人民银行法》、《商业银行法》和《外汇管理条例》等有关法律法规，制定本办法。 第二条本办法所称对银行业金融机构执行人民银行政策情况评价是指人民银行南京分行（含国家外汇管理局江苏省分局，下同）依据人民银行（含国家外汇管理局，下同）的法定管理职责，对江苏省银行业金融机构执行有关金融法律法规、规章和管理规定以及政策措施等情况进行全面评估并确定评价等级的制度。 第三条评价的基本原则： （一）公开、公平、公正的原则。 （二）科学、高效、合理的原则。 （三）非现场管理与现场检查相结合的原则。 （四）年度评价与日常管理相结合的原则。

（五）全面评价与分项评价相结合的原则。 第四条本办法适用于在江苏省内依法设立的银行业金融机构，包括政策性银行、国有商业银行、股份制商业银行、城市商业银行、农村信用社（含农村商业银行、农村合作银行）、邮政储蓄银行等。 人民银行南京分行负责对各政策性银行江苏省（南京）分行、国有商业银行江苏省分行、股份制商业银行南京分行、城市商业银行南京分行、江苏银行、南京银行、邮储银行江苏省分行（简称“省级银行业机构”）进行评价。 在江苏非南京地区设立的银行业法人机构、省级（区域）分行，由人民银行南京分行根据需要授权机构所在地人民银行分支机构进行评价。 第五条人民银行南京分行成立银行业金融机构执行人民银行政策情况评价工作领导小组（简称“人民银行南京分行评价工作领导小组”），办公室设在人民银行南京分行金融稳定处。 第六条评价工作按年度进行，评价周期为每年1月1日至12月31日。 第二章评价规则 第七条评价的内容包括货币信贷、金融稳定、金融统计、会计财务、支付结算、金融科技、货币金银、国库会计、征信管理、反洗钱、支付清算、外汇管理等（评价项目与标

公司地址变更申请书范文3篇

公司地址变更申请书范文3篇 公司改地址需提出申请。要怎么写申请好呢？下面是公司地址变更申请书范文，希望我们的文章你能喜欢。 第一步：申请人持相关材料向市政务服务中心工商局窗口提出申请，经受理审查员初审通过，开具《受理通知书》或者《申请材料接收单》;不符合受理条件的，在当场或者5个工作日内一次性告知申请人应当补正的全部材料出具告知单。 第二步：对申请人申请材料齐全、符合法定形式的，当场作出是否准予登记的决定并出具《登记决定通知书》;需要对申请材料的实质内容进行核实的，出具《企业登记材料需要核实事项告知书》，在10个工作日内作出核准或者驳回申请的决定。 第三步：在1个工作日内申请材料的实质内容需核实的除外，申请人可以凭《登记决定通知书》到发照窗口换发《企业法人营业执照》。 四、申请材料: 1公司法定代表人签署的《公司变更登记申请书》公司加盖公章; 2公司签署的《指定代表或者共同委托代理人的证明》公司加盖公章及指定代表或委托代理人身份证复印件本人签字，应标明具体委托事项、被委托人的权限、委托期限; 3公司章程修正案公司法定代表人签署; 4法律、行政法规和国务院决定规定变更名称必须报经有关部门批准的，提交有关部门的批准文件或者许可证书复印件; 5公司《企业法人营业执照》副本。 6《企业名称变更核准通知书》。 公司变更名称，应当向其公司登记机关提出申请，申请名称超出其公司登记机关管辖权限的，由其公司登记机关向有该名称登记权的公司登记机关申报。 注：依照《公司法》、《公司登记管理条例》设立的公司申请名称变更适用。 以上各项未注明提交复印件的，应当提交原件;提交复印件的，应由公司加盖公章并署明与原件一致。 XXXX工商局： 我单位位于xx街路xx号，由于经营其他原因需要，现欲搬到xx街路xx号。现申请将xx证上的经营地址进行相应变更，请给予办理为感。

变更企业名称申请书

变更企业名称申请书 变更企业名称申请书 致总公司 内容 特此申请 申请单位及个人 年月日 --------- 原企业名称 注册号 拟变更企业名称 备选企业名称（请选用不同的字号）： 1 2 3 经营范围（只需填写与企业名称行业表述一致的主要业务项目）： 注册资本（金）（法人企业必须填写） 企业类型□公司制□非公司制□个人独资□合伙 企业住所（地址） 企业盖章及法定代表人（负责人）签字 2 申请人应提交的材料清单 选择项序号文件，证件名称说明 1企业名称变更申请书本表第1页 2企业授权委托意见本表第3页 3企业营业执照复印件须加盖公章 4主管部门或审批机关的批准文件 5其他有关材料 备注： 1，“选择项”栏由工商部门填写：“说明”栏应注明提交的文件，证件是原件还是复印件； 2，企业名称变更申请书中的签字（盖章）应由企业盖公章，法定代表人（负责人）签字； 3，申请人应当使用钢笔，毛笔或签字笔工整地填写表格或签字。 申请人谨此确认和承诺本次申请中提交的所有文件材 料和填写的内容是真实，合法，有效的，复印件与原件是一 致的，并对因材料虚假所引起的一切后果负法律责任。 申请人签字（盖章）： 3 企业授权委托意见 兹委托（我单位/代理机构/自然人股东）前来办理企业名称变更事宜。 授权期限为： 授权权限如下（同意的，在括号内签署“同意”；不同意的，在括号内签署

“不同意”。选择二项以上同意或有空括号未填写的，本授权委托意见无效。）：1，全权办理企业名称变更申请，但不得修改本申请书任何文字内容。（） 2，全权办理企业名称变更申请，授权修改本申请书出现的错别字，遗漏和误加的文字。（） 3，全权办理企业名称变更申请，如申请的企业名称未能核准，授权修改，增加或减少企业名称字词表述。（） 4，全权办理企业名称变更申请，授权修改本申请书任何内容和文字表述。（） 代办人或代理人身份证复印件粘贴处 代办人或代理人签字： 联系电话： 通信地址及邮政编码： （企业盖章处） 年月日 4 （同意使用）承诺书 今有拟变更企业 名称为，拟用 “”作为字号，主要从事行 业。恳请予以核准。 本企业特此承诺：该名称中的字号符合国家法律，法规的规定， 其行业用语与经营范围主营业务是相一致的，凡在今后的经营活动 中，若与其他企业因名称发生争议或登记注册的经营范围与名称申请 的经营范围或行业专用语有差异时，我们愿无条件服从工商行政管理 机关的处理决定，变更企业名称，并承担相应的法律责任。 申请人盖章： 相关企业意见，盖章： 年月日

公司更名申请书范文3篇

公司更名申请书范文3篇 尊敬的社保局 您好! 未来我公司对外需要开具的发票抬头以及所有的相关票据、合同、文档等都以最新的名称为准，此前名称将不再使用，特此申请，望 批准! 凹凸人网(北京)教育科技有限公司 20xx年8月10日 (1)法定代表人签署的《公司变更登记申请书》(领取，公司加盖公章); (2)《企业(公司)申请登记委托书》(领取，公司加盖公章)，应 标明具体委托事项和被委托人的权限; 股份有限公司提交股东会决议内容包括：决议事项、修改公司章程相关条款，由发起人盖章或出席会议的董事签字。 国有独资有限责任公司提交董事会决议，内容包括：决议事项、修改公司章程相关条款，由董事签字。 (5)公司章程修正案; 有限责任公司由股东盖章或签字(自然人股东); 股份有限公司由发起人盖章或出席会议的董事签字确认。 国有独资有限责任公司由投资人盖章。 (6)公司营业执照副本复印件。 以上各项未注明提交复印件的一般均应提交原件; 提交复印件的，应由公司加盖公章并署明与原件一致。

xx有限公司，因业务发展需要，于XXXX年8月31日变更为北京腾华巨业科贸有限公司。从即日起xx有限公司于贵单位发生的各项业务和结算，全部由更名后xx有限公司负责。 变更后所出现的一切问题与北京甘家口大厦有限责任公司无关，责任由更名后的北京腾华巨业科贸有限公司承担。 原厂编：现厂编： 原公司名称：xx有限公司现公司名称：xx有限公司 原公司地址：xxxx现公司地址：xxxx 原开户行账号：32985602xxxx现开户行账号：1109030104001xxxx 原开户行银行：中国银行北京通州滨河支行现开户行银行：中国农行北京通州支行城关分理处 原(公章，财务章)现(公章，财务章) 原法人章现法人章 年月日 看了公司更名申请书的还看了：

关于公司变更监事申请书

关于公司变更监事申请书 监事(supervisor )，是公司中常设的监察机关的成员，又称“监察人”，负责监察公司的财务情况，公司高级管理人员的职务执行情况，以及其他由公司章程规定的监察职责。下文是小编为大家收集的关于变更监事的请示范文，仅供参考! 关于公司变更监事申请书一 合肥美菱股份有限公司关于变更公司职工监事的公告 本公司职工监事齐敦卫先生因个人原因于20xx年1月26日请求辞去所任的公司职工代表监事职务，本公司监事会同意齐敦卫先生的辞职请求。前述有关事项本公司已于20xx月1月28日在《证券时报》、《香港商报》及巨潮资讯网上以公告形式(20xx-003号公告)进行了披露。 20xx年2月26日，本公司监事会收到公司工会的《推荐函》，经职工代表大会选举，同意尚文先生担任公司第六届监事会职工监事。 特此公告。 合肥美菱股份有限公司监事会

关于公司变更监事申请书二 鉴于有限公司经股东会决议更换了公司董事，因此，新一届董事会成员于200X年XX月XX日在XX市XX区XX路XX号(XX 会议室)召开董事会会议，本次会议是根据公司章程规定召开的临时会议。于召开会议前依法通知了全体董事，会议通知的时间及方式符合公司章程的规定。股东会选举产生的新一届董事会成员XXX、XXX、XXX、XXX、XXX出席了本次会议。原公司董事长XXX主持了会议，董事会一致通过并决议如下： 一、决定免去XXX的董事长职务，选举XXX为公司新一届的董事长。 二、继续聘任XXX为公司经理。 有限公司董事会成员(签字)：XXX、XXX、XXX、XXX、XXX 200X年XX月XX日 关于公司变更监事申请书三 会议时间：20xx年12月2日 会议地点：***************(速捷快递有限公司会议室) 会议性质：临时(或者定期)股东会议 参加会议人员：

地址变更申请书

地址变更申请书 篇一：地址变更申请书 地址变更申请书 申请书 ***(单位)： 我单位位于**街(路)**号，由于经营(其他原因)需要，现欲搬到**街(路)**号。现申请将**证上的经营地址进行相应变更，请给予办理为感。 申请人：***** 年月日 赵王婧仪 20XX-05-03 篇二：申请书(变更注册地址范例) 医疗器械经营企业变更所需提交形式材料及范例 （一）基本材料： 1、企业变更《医疗器械经营企业许可证》的申请书(见范例一)； 2、《医疗器械经营企业许可证》变更申请表(一式两份，必须打印，不得手写，其余材料均提交一份)(见范例二)； 3、《医疗器械经营企业许可证》正、本原件(范例略)； 4、所提交材料真实性的自我保证声明(见范例三)；（二）必备材料：

1、变更质量管理人员的，提交基本材料的同时提交新任质量管理人员的身份证(范例略)、学历证书或者职称证书复印件(范例略)； 2、变更企业注册地址的，提交基本材料的同时提交变更后地址的产权证明(范例略)或者租赁协议复印件(见范例四)、地理位臵图(见范例 五)、平面图(见范例六)及存储条件说明(见范例七)； 3、变更经营范围的，提交基本材料的同时提交拟经营产品注册证的复印件(范例略)及相应存储条件的说明(范例略)； 4、变更仓库地址的，提交基本材料的同时提交变更后仓库地址的产权证明(范例略)或者租赁协议复印件(见范例四)、地理位臵图(见范例 五)、平面图(见范例六)及存储条件说明(见范例七)； 5、变更企业名称需提供已变更的《营业执照》复印件(范例略)或《企业核名通知书》(范例略)； 6、变更法人、负责人的，提交基本材料的同时提交已变更的《营业执照》复印件(范例略)。 范例一：申请书 黑龙江省食品药品监督管理局： 我公司因原经营地址租期已到，依据《医疗器械监督管理条例》、《医疗器械经营企业许可证》等相关法律规定，申请变更医疗器械经营注册地址至：哈尔滨市XX区XX街XX号X层XXX室。 特此申请。 XXXXXXXXXXXXX公司 XXXX年XX月XX日

公司注册地址变更(程序)

公司注册地址变更 内资企业 一、办理程序 1、申请营业执照变更（迁入地工商局）； 2、办理工商转出（迁出地工商局）； 3、领取新营业执照（迁入地工商局）； 4、变更税务登记证； 5、变更组织机构代码证； 二、提交材料 （一）申请营业执照变更（迁入地工商局） 申报材料: 1、公司法定代表人签署的变更登记申请书； 2、公司委托代理人的证明（委托书）以及委托人的工作证或身份证复印件； 3、股东会决议； 4、修改过的公司章程（包括修正案）； 5、新住所证明，租赁房屋需提交租赁协议书，协议期限必须一年以上（附产权证复印件）； 6、营业执照正副本、IC卡（电子版营业执照）原件+复印件（加盖公章）； 7、其它有关文件。

（注：申请人向拟迁入地的登记机关提交上述变更材料后，拟迁入地的登记机关初审合格后出具《企业迁移通知书》） （二）办理工商转出（迁出地工商局） 申报材料: 《企业迁移通知书》 （注：企业将《企业迁移通知书》交到迁出地登记机关；迁出地登记机关将登记档案采用挂号邮递方式邮至迁入地登记机关。） （三）领取新营业执照（迁入地工商局） （四）变更组织机构代码证 申报材料： 1、代码变更申请表； 2、法人身份证明； 3、变更后的工商营业执照、各部门批复复印件； 4、原代码证书正本、副本，代码证IC卡。 办理时限： 换证3个工作日。 （五）变更税务登记证 申报材料： 1、原税务登记证件原件（正、副本）； 2、加盖公章的《变更税务登记申请表》； 3、营业执照/注册证/登记证/其他核准执业证书（原件+复印件）； 4、组织机构代码证（原件+复印件）；

5、注册地/经营地的房屋产权证/使用权证明（门牌号有变更的须提供公安局新编门牌号证明）、租赁合同（涉及转租的需提供转租协议）原件。 6、《房屋、土地、车船情况登记表》（1式3份）。 外资企业 一、办理程序 1、申请迁入（迁入地商务委）； 2、申请迁出，取得批复（迁出地商务委）； 3、申请营业执照变更（迁入地工商局）； 4、办理工商转出（迁出地工商局）； 5、领取新营业执照（迁入地工商局）； 6、变更批准证书（迁入地商务委）； 7、变更组织机构代码证； 8、变更税务登记证； 9、变更外汇登记证； 10、变更财政登记证； 11、变更海关登记证。 二、提交材料 （一）申请迁入（迁入地商务委） 申报材料: 1、企业变更注册地址及修改合同、章程相应条款的申请报告； 2、企业原批准证书、营业执照（复印件）； 3、企业股东会或董事会关于注册地址变更及修改合同、章程相应条

公司地址变更申请书

公司地址变更申请书 篇一：工商营业执照地址变更地址变更申请 ___________有限公司因业务需要，申请将室变更至。 特此申请。 XXXXXX 二〇一五年四月八日 中铁二十四局集团有限公司因业务需要，将中铁二十四局集团有限公司黑龙江工程分公司的营业场所由哈尔滨市道里区地德里小区312栋1层3号变更至哈尔滨市香坊区华山路10号万达商务楼3号楼1层105室，申请哈尔滨市道里区工商局予以调档。特此申请。 中铁二十四局集团有限公司 二〇一四年九月二日 篇二：地址变更申请书 地址变更申请书 哈尔滨市商务局： **公司于*年*月*日成立，企业经营注册地址为：*市*区*路*号。由于注册地房屋产权纠纷，已严重影响我单位正常经营。特申请变更经营地址，将原经营注册地址：****申请变更为：*市*区*街*号，请贵局予以批准为盼。 特此申请！ 申请人：*公司 *年*月*日 *

篇三：公司地址变更申请书 深圳注册公司 公司地址变更范文 公司地址变更申请书范文1 XXXX工商局： 一、本公司于XXXX年XX月XX日奉设立准登记，领到工商局设新字第XX号执照。 二、兹因增加营业项目申请变更登记： 迁移地址 改选董事监事 三、遵照公司法规定，检具有关文件，随缴登记费XX元，执照费XX元，缴销原领执照，敬请准予变更登记换发执照。 申请人：XXX股份有限公司 时间：20xx年x月x日 公司地址变更申请书范文2 XX工商局： 我单位位于南通市港闸区陈桥乡河口村11组，由于经营的需要，现欲搬到南通市通州区平潮镇颜港村3组。现申请将营业执照证上的经营地址进行相应变更，特此申请，望批准为盼。 申请人：xxxx设备有限公司 时间：20xx年x月x日 公司地址变更申请书范文3