Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research.

Abstract

Numerous studies showed decreased performance in situations that require multiple tasks or actions relative to appropriate control conditions. Because humans often engage in such multitasking activities, it is important to understand how multitasking affects performance. In the present article, we argue that research on dual-task interference and sequential task switching has proceeded largely separately using different experimental paradigms and methodology. In our article we aim at organizing this complex set of research in terms of three complementary research perspectives on human multitasking. One perspective refers to structural accounts in terms of cognitive bottlenecks (i.e., critical processing stages). A second perspective refers to cognitive flexibility in terms of the underlying cognitive control processes. A third perspective emphasizes cognitive plasticity in terms of the influence of practice on human multitasking abilities. With our review article we aimed at highlighting the value of an integrative position that goes beyond isolated consideration of a single theoretical research perspective and that broadens the focus from single experimental paradigms (dual task and task switching) to favor instead a view that emphasizes the fundamental similarity of the underlying cognitive mechanisms across multitasking paradigms. (PsycINFO Database Record

Investigating the impact of dynamic and static secondary tasks on task-switch cost

“…Given that handling a secondary task requirement might require more focused attention, this narrowing might block processing of otherwise helpful information. Such a modulation of beneficial memoryretrieval-based processes by introducing context changes (i.e., a cue modality change) has been reported for response repetition effects (Koch, Frings et al, 2018;Koch, Poljac et al, 2018), which were less beneficial in the case of a task repetition when the cue modality changed.…”

“…However, changing task sets and thereby ensuring successful goal achievement comes at a cost (i.e., higher reaction times [RTs] and larger error percentages [PE] for sequences of type BA than for sequences of type AA, with A and B standing for different tasks). This taskswitch cost have been successfully investigated in research employing the task-switching paradigm, in which participants have to flexibly shift between two simple cognitive classification tasks, indicated by a task cue (Jost, De Baene, Koch, & Brass, 2013;Kiesel et al, 2010;Koch, Poljac, Müller, & Kiesel, 2018;Vandierendonck, Liefooghe, & Verbruggen, 2010).…”

Meta-control of the exploration-exploitation dilemma emerges from probabilistic inference over a hierarchy of time scales

“…Cognitive control is considered essential for some of the most advanced cognitive capacities of humans, such as the ability to pursue long-term goals and to respond flexibly to changing contexts and task demands. However, much of the experimental research on cognitive control has focused on relatively simple laboratory tasks, as, for instance, interference paradigms such as Stroop or flanker task (e.g., Kalanthroff et al 2018;Scherbaum et al 2011), or paradigms assessing cognitive flexibility such as task switching (Koch et al 2018). Many of these tasks are aimed at inducing conflicting internal representations, which trigger responses that are in contradiction to the instructed task goal and may lead to an incorrect response.…”

Optimisation of functional network resources when learning behavioural strategies for performing complex tasks

“…This difference in response speed between switch and repeat trials is the "switch cost". Switch costs are amongst the most replicated findings in cognitive neuroscience [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] ; however, our understanding of the underlying neural mechanisms remains rudimentary at best, and lacks ecological validity 9,11,12 .…”