Two types of between-task conflict trigger respective processing adjustments within one dual-task

Mahesan, Devu; Janczyk, Markus; Fischer, Rico

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103450

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Effective task shielding can be inferred from the size of the so-called backward crosstalk effect (BCE) that reflects to which extent Task 1 processing is affected by simultaneous Task 2 processing. Importantly, the smaller this backward crosstalk onto Task 1 performance, the more effective is task shielding and interference control 33 – 37 . In two different experimental sessions, participants received either atDCS or sham tDCS over left dlPFC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of the executive control network by anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves task shielding in dual tasking

Mahesan

Antonenko

Flöel

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Task shielding is an important executive control demand in dual-task performance enabling the segregation of stimulus–response translation processes in each task to minimize between-task interference. Although neuroimaging studies have shown activity in left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) during various multitasking performances, the specific role of dlPFC in task shielding, and whether non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) may facilitate task shielding remains unclear. We therefore applied a single-blind, crossover sham-controlled design in which 34 participants performed a dual-task experiment with either anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS, 1 mA, 20 min) or sham tDCS (1 mA, 30 s) over left dlPFC. Task shielding was assessed by the backward-crosstalk effect, indicating the extent of between-task interference in dual tasks. Between-task interference was largest at high temporal overlap between tasks, i.e., at short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). Most importantly, in these conditions of highest multitasking demands, atDCS compared to sham stimulation significantly reduced between-task interference in error rates. These findings extend previous neuroimaging evidence and support modulation of successful task shielding through a conventional tDCS setup with anodal electrode over the left dlPFC. Moreover, our results demonstrate that NIBS can improve shielding of the prioritized task processing, especially in conditions of highest vulnerability to between-task interference.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of the executive control network by anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves task shielding in dual tasking

Mahesan

Antonenko

Flöel

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, a no-go BCE is only observed when the Task 2 go-response can be fully prepared in advance (Durst et al, 2019; Janczyk & Huestegge, 2017), but not when the go response further requires a choice between two possible (and equiprobable) responses (see also Miller & Durst, 2015). Yet, it appears possible to induce a state of general preparedness when the proportion of go/choice trials is high throughout an experimental block, leading to a no-go BCE (Mahesan et al, 2021). These studies suggest that the no-go BCE is caused by an inhibitory signal originating from Task 2 response suppression in case of a no-go trial, which in turn also inhibits execution of the Task 1 motor response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal aspects of two types of backward crosstalk in dual-tasks: An analysis of continuous mouse-tracking data

Schonard

Ulrich

Janczyk

2022

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common explanation for processing limitations in dual-tasking is the existence of a bottleneck during response selection, meaning that the selection of responses can only occur serially for different tasks. However, a large body of data shows that features of a (secondary) Task 2 can already influence the processing of a (primary) Task 1. Such effects are referred to as backward crosstalk effects (BCEs). In the present study, two types of such BCEs were investigated: the compatibility-based BCE, which depends on the dimensional (often spatial) overlap between task features, and a BCE based on a go/no-go task in Task 2 (no-go BCE). Joining a line of research that suggests different mechanisms for these two types of BCEs, we investigated them using a mouse tracking setup. Time continuous analyses revealed that the compatibility-based BCE triggered a spatial activation of the Task 2 response early during Task 1 processing, whereas the no-go BCE triggered an inhibitory effect in the case of a no-go Task 2, which spills over to Task 1 execution. This occurred, however, earlier in the time-course than expected. The results are discussed with regard to recent models of dual-task processing.

show abstract

Dual-Task Performance with Simple Tasks

Fischer

Janczyk

2022

Handbook of Human Multitasking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two types of between-task conflict trigger respective processing adjustments within one dual-task

Cited by 4 publications

References 53 publications

Modulation of the executive control network by anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves task shielding in dual tasking

Modulation of the executive control network by anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves task shielding in dual tasking

Temporal aspects of two types of backward crosstalk in dual-tasks: An analysis of continuous mouse-tracking data

Dual-Task Performance with Simple Tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About