Learning of across- and within-task contingencies modulates partial-repetition costs in dual-tasking

Self Cite

The usual way of thinking about dual-tasking is that the participants represent the two tasks separately. However, several findings suggest that the participants rather seem to integrate the elements of both tasks into a conjoint episode. In three experiments, we aimed at further testing this task integration account in dual-tasking. To this end, we investigated how the processing of the previous Trial n-1 shapes the processing of the current Trial n. We observed performance benefits when the stimulus–response mappings of both tasks repeat in consecutive trials (full repetition: FR) as compared to when only one such mapping repeats (partial repetition: PR). In particular, our experiments focused on the question which elements of the two tasks in dual-tasking might be bound together. For this purpose, in Experiments 1 and 2, all participants performed a dual-task consisting of a visual–manual search task (VST) and an auditory–manual discrimination task (ADT). In the VST the stimulus–response mappings were variable, so that none of the stimuli of this task systematically predicted a certain response. In Experiment 1, the stimuli and responses of the VST were either both repeated or both changed in consecutive trials. In Experiment 2, we removed the stimulus repetitions in the VST and only the responses repeated across trials. In Experiment 3, we changed the ADT into a visual–auditory matching task (VAMT) with variable stimulus–response mappings, so that in both tasks only the responses repeated across trials. In Experiments 1 and 2, we observed better performance for FR than for PR, while this difference disappeared in Experiment 3. Together, the results suggest that the stimulus of one task is sufficient to retrieve the entire episode from the previous trial.

Section: Performance In the Adtsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: The Present Studysupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Element-level features in conjoint episodes in dual-tasking

Pelzer

Naefgen

Gaschler

et al. 2022

Self Cite

Task integration in complex, bimanual sequence learning tasks

Beißel,

Künzell

2023

Sequence learning and multitasking studies have largely focused on simple motor skills, which cannot be directly transferred to the plethora of complex skills found outside of laboratory conditions. Established theories e.g. for bimanual tasks and task integration thus have to be reassessed in the context of complex motor skills. We hypothesize that under more complex conditions, task integration facilitates motor learning, impedes or suppresses effector-specific learning and can still be observed despite partial secondary task interference. We used the Ξ-apparatus to assess the learning success of six groups in a bimanual dual-task, in which we manipulated the degree of possible integration between the right-hand and the left-hand sequences. We could show that task integration positively influences the learning of these complex, bimanual skills. However, the integration impedes but not fully suppresses effector-specific learning, as we could measure reduced hand-specific learning. Task integration improves learning despite the disruptive effect of partial secondary task interference, but its mitigating effect is only effective to some extent. Overall, the results suggest that previous insights on sequential motor learning and task integration can largely also be applied to complex motor skills.

Can frequent long stimulus onset ansynchronies (SOAs) foster the representation of two separated task-sets in dual-tasking?

Pelzer,

Naefgen,

Herzig

et al. 2024

Self Cite

Recent findings suggest that in dual-tasking the elements of the two tasks are associated across tasks and are stored in a conjoint memory episode, meaning that the tasks are not represented as isolated task-sets. In the current study, we tested whether frequent long stimulus onset ansynchronies (SOAs) can foster the representation of two separated task-sets thereby reducing or even hindering participants to generate conjoint memory episodes—compared to an integrated task-set representation induced by frequent short SOAs. Alternatively, it is conceivable that conjoint memory episodes are an inevitable consequence of presenting two tasks within a single trial. In two dual-task experiments, we tested between consecutive trials whether repeating the stimulus–response bindings of both tasks would lead to faster responses than repeating only one of the two tasks’ stimulus–response bindings. The dual-task consisted of a visual-manual search task (VST) and an auditory-manual discrimination task (ADT). Overall, the results suggest that, after processing two tasks within a single trial, generating a conjoint memory episode seems to be a default process, regardless of SOA frequency. However, the respective SOA frequency affected the participants’ strategy to group the processing of the two tasks or not, thereby modulating the impact of the reactivated memory episode on task performance.