Common Cognitive Control Processes Underlying Performance in Task-Switching and Dual-Task Contexts

Abstract

cognitive control, task switching, dual tasks, PrP effectin the present study, participants performed highly comparable task-switching and dual-task paradigms, and the paradigm-specific performance costs were analysed in the context of the commonly postulated core components of cognitive control (i.e., working memory updating, inhibition, and shifting). in the task-switching paradigm, we found switch costs (i.e., switch trials vs. repetition trials) and mixing costs (i.e., repetition trials in mixed-task blocks vs. single-task trials). in the dual-task paradigm, we observed a psychological refractory period (PrP) effect (i.e., task 2 [t2] performance after short stimulus-onset asynchrony [soA] vs. long soA), dual-task costs (i.e., t2 dual-task performance with a long soA in trials with a task repetition between task 1 [t1] and t2 vs. single-task performance), and switch costs in t2 (i.e., dual-task performance in trials with a switch between t1 and t2 vs. dual-task performance in trials with a repetition between t1 and t2). A within-subjects comparison of the performance costs showed a correlation between mixing costs and dual-task costs, possibly indicating shared underlying cognitive control processes in terms of working memory updating. surprisingly, there was also a correlation between switch costs and the PrP effect, presumably suggesting that cognitive control, as opposed to passive queuing of response selection processes, contributes to the PrP effect. corresponding author: Patricia hirsch, cognitive and experimental Psychology, institute AbstrAct Keywords

Putting a stereotype to the test: The case of gender differences in multitasking costs in task-switching and dual-task situations

“…In contrast to the multitasking costs measured in task-switching contexts, there is so far no consensus about the underlying cognitive mechanisms (i.e., working memory updating, inhibition, and shifting) of performance costs arising in dual-task contexts. However, a recent study by Hirsch and colleagues (2018) suggests that dual-task costs reflect, like mixing costs, cognitive processes involved in maintaining and updating task sets in working memory [11]. Furthermore, this study provides first evidence indicating that the PRP effect might reflect at least partly processes related to the engagement and disengagement and/or inhibition of task sets.…”

“…We employed the same stimuli, tasks, and responses as Hirsch and colleagues (2018) [11]. The stimuli consisted of a fixation cross ( + ), an asterisk, capital letters, including consonants (i.e., G , K , M , and R ) and vowels (i.e., A , E , I , and U ), and digits from 1 to 9 (except 5 ).…”

Common and distinct neural correlates of dual-tasking and task-switching: a meta-analytic review and a neuro-cognitive processing model of human multitasking

“…Taken together, models explaining switch costs due to additional cognitive control processes assume that a process of task-set reconfiguration prolongs RT (e.g., Meiran 2000), while others associate switch costs with bottom-up guided carry-over effects (Allport et al 1994;Logan and Bundesen 2003;Wylie and Allport 2000) or inhibitory processes related to the previous task (Koch et al 2010). Considering that dual-tasking also involves task-switching processes, all models might also account for the switching-related performance costs in dual-tasking (Hirsch et al 2018). To shed more light on possible underlying neural mechanisms of switch costs, the next section briefly surveys relevant findings regarding the neural correlates of task-switching.…”

Moderate aerobic exercise, but not anticipation of exercise, improves cognitive control

“…We chose to report results using RT LISAS (as opposed to the more typical RT) to account for the observed speed-accuracy tradeoffs made by the participants. Though still a relatively new measure, RT LI-SAS has already been used in a number of studies of cognition over the past 3 years, see for example [51][52][53][54]. The RT LISAS score was calculated using the following equation:…”