Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance

Previous studies showed that some dual tasks can be performed simultaneously without costs. Yet, a variable SOA between the inputs to such tasks leads to strategic, often involuntary, prioritization of one of the two tasks. Here we explore the boundary conditions for this involuntary or exogenous strategy. In Experiment 1, subjects were initially trained on dual task performance where the input to the two tasks is presented simultaneously (0 SOA). We used two tasks that under such conditions can be performed without costs and indeed subjects displayed perfect sharing of the tasks. Subjects then performed the same two tasks but with a variable SOA (0, 50, 150, 800 ms). This manipulation led to a serial-like performance of the two tasks even in trials with 0 SOA. In Experiment 2, subjects participated in eight sessions. Within each session, they performed in alternation blocks with a fixed 0 SOA and blocks with a variable SOA. Subjects displayed perfect sharing in the pure 0 SOA blocks but performed the two tasks serially in the mixed SOA blocks despite receiving identical instructions. These findings demonstrate that task context is a powerful factor in dual task performance and may lead subjects to involuntarily exhibit dual task costs even in conditions where they can perform the tasks without any costs. Moreover, these findings strongly suggest that costs observed in PRP studies reflect the use of such exogenous strategies rather than a general structural dual task limitation.

[1]  Pierre Jolicœur,et al.  All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon , 2002, Psychological research.

[2]  D. Allport,et al.  On the Division of Attention: A Disproof of the Single Channel Hypothesis , 1972, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  Eliot Hazeltine,et al.  Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Roy Luria,et al.  Increased Control Demand Results in Serial Processing , 2005, Psychological science.

[5]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Dario D. Salvucci,et al.  Threaded cognition: an integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. , 2008, Psychological review.

[7]  Meta Bowman,et al.  About the Division , 2013 .

[8]  Jennifer M. Glass,et al.  Virtually Perfect Time Sharing in Dual-Task Performance: Uncorking the Central Cognitive Bottleneck , 2001, Psychological science.

[9]  Hillary D. Schwarb,et al.  Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task , 2011, Psychological research.

[10]  H. Pashler Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks , 1999 .

[12]  Welford At An apparatus for use in studying serial performance. , 1952 .

[13]  R. Remington,et al.  The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  H. Pashler,et al.  Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Ritske de Jong,et al.  Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance , 1993 .

[16]  Uri Feintuch,et al.  Visual Attention and Coactivation of Response Decisions for Features from Different Dimensions , 2002 .

[17]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: an fMRI study , 2006, Psychological research.

[18]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[19]  R. D. Gordon,et al.  Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. , 2001, Psychological review.

[20]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference , 1992 .

[21]  A. Cohen,et al.  Modularity beyond perception: evidence from the PRP paradigm. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  D E Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. , 1997, Psychological review.

[23]  A. Cohen,et al.  Modularity beyond perception: Evidence from single task interference paradigms , 2007, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  J. Danckert Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action: Attention and Performance XIX Wolfgang Prinz, Bernhard Hommel (Eds.), Oxford University Press, 2002, Price: £ 65.00, ISBN: 0-19-851069 , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[25]  Jennifer M. Glass,et al.  Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. , 1999 .

[26]  M. C. Smith,et al.  Theories of the psychological refractory period. , 1967, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Neural mechanisms of concurrent stimulus processing in dual tasks , 2009, NeuroImage.

[28]  David E. Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. , 1997 .

[29]  T. Leahey,et al.  Learning and cognition , 1993 .

[30]  Uri Feintuch,et al.  Visual attention and coactivation of response decisions for features from different dimensions. , 2002, Psychological science.

[31]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? , 2001 .

[32]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference , 1992 .

[33]  R. D. de Jong,et al.  Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  Asher Cohen,et al.  Perceptual Dimensional Constraints in Response Selection Processes , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  A. Welford An apparatus for use in studying serial performance. , 1952, American Journal of Psychology.

[36]  E. Hazeltine,et al.  Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck , 2006, Psychological Research.

[37]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  Decision and Response in Dual-Task Interference , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  Iring Koch,et al.  The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching , 2011, Psychological research.

[39]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. , 1998 .

[40]  H. Pashler,et al.  Close binding of identity and location in visual feature perception. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[41]  J. Wolfe Visual search in continuous, naturalistic stimuli , 1994, Vision Research.

[42]  B. Hommel Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[43]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled & automatic processing: behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  H. Pashler The Psychology of Attention , 1997 .

[45]  P. Bertelson Central Intermittency Twenty Years Later * , 1966, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.