Higher-order cognitive control in dual tasks: Evidence from task-pair switching.

Abstract

In the present study, we combined the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm with a novel task-pair switching logic which enabled us to isolate performance costs occurring at the global level of task-pairs. In Experiment 1, in which we used conceptually overlapping responses for Task 1 (T1) and Task 2 (T2), we generated 3 task-pairs by combining 1 of 3 visual tasks (T1) with an auditory task (T2). In addition to worse performance after a short SOA than a long SOA (i.e., PRP effect), we found impaired performance in n - 1 task-pair switches as compared to n - 1 task-pair repetitions (i.e., n - 1 task-pair switch costs), suggesting that task-pairs were activated during dual-task processing. In Experiment 2, we increased the interference between T1 and T2 by using physically overlapping responses and we again observed n - 1 task-pair switch costs. To investigate whether the activation of task-pairs is adjusted by inhibitory control, we looked at the n - 2 task-pair sequence and found performance to be better in n - 2 task-pair repetitions than in n - 2 task-pair switches in both experiments. This n - 2 task-pair repetition benefit was replicated in Experiment 3 in which no immediate task-pair repetitions were included. Hence, the evidence suggests enhanced activation rather than inhibition as a crucial selection mechanism at the global level of dual-task processing. (PsycINFO Database Record

Action scheduling in multitasking: A multi-phase framework of response-order control

“…However, in line with the cited evidence for a more flexible, strategic view on cognitive control in multitasking, some researchers explicitly suggested that response order in the PRP paradigm might to some extent be scheduled actively (e.g., De Jong, 1995;Leonhard et al, 2011;Luria & Meiran, 2003;Szameitat, Lepsien, von Cramon, Sterr, & Schubert, 2006). Instead of being determined in a purely stimulus-driven (bottom-up) manner, it was suggested that additional control processes specific to response-order coordination are required, for instance task sequence activation or inhibition processes (e.g., Hirsch, Nolden, Koch, 2017;Sigman & Dehane, 2008). Importantly, most previous research can be characterized as taking a more macroscopic view on response-order control.…”

“…He found a tendency towards repeating the processing order from the previous trial in the unpredictable stimulus-order condition, indicating contextual modulation of response-order control. Probably, this effect can be explained by the intention to avoid performance costs associated with trial-by-trial switches of response order (Luria & Meiran, 2003;Hirsch, Nolden, & Koch, 2017).…”

Monitoring and control in multitasking

“…This measure is often interpeted as a marker of inhibitory task control (for reviews, see Gade, Schuch, Druey, & Koch, 2014;Koch, Gade, Schuch, & Philipp, 2010). Hybrids between the different multitasking paradigms have also been developed; for instance, measuring task-switch costs and N-2 repetition costs in a PRP paradigm in order to investigate higher-level task-order control (e.g., Hirsch, Nolden, & Koch, 2017;Kübler, Reimer, Strobach, & Schubert, 2018;Luria & Meiran, 2003;Stelzel, Kraft, Brandt, & Schubert, 2008;Strobach, Soutschek, Antonenko, Flöel, & Schubert, 2015), or to investigate action effect monitoring Wirth, Steinhauser, Janczyk, Steinhauser, & Kunde, 2018).…”

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

“…In the task-switching domain, there is converging evidence that inhibition is involved in task-switching performance (e.g., Mayr & Keele, 2000; for a review, see, e.g., Koch et al, 2010). In dual-task research, however, inhibition has not yet been examined systematically (see Hirsch, Nolden, & Koch, 2017, for an exception), thus remaining an important topic for future studies.…”