Parallel and serial task processing in the PRP paradigm: a drift–diffusion model approach

Even after a long time of research on dual-tasking, the question whether the two tasks are always processed serially (response selection bottleneck models, RSB) or also in parallel (capacity-sharing models) is still going on. The first models postulate that the central processing stages of two tasks cannot overlap, producing a central processing bottleneck in Task 2. The second class of models posits that cognitive resources are shared between the central processing stages of two tasks, allowing for parallel processing. In a series of three experiments, we aimed at inducing parallel vs. serial processing by manipulating the relative frequency of short vs. long SOAs (Experiments 1 and 2) and including no-go trials in Task 2 (Experiment 3). Beyond the conventional response time (RT) analyses, we employed drift–diffusion model analyses to differentiate between parallel and serial processing. Even though our findings were rather consistent across the three experiments, they neither support unambiguously the assumptions derived from the RSB model nor those derived from capacity-sharing models. SOA frequency might lead to an adaptation to frequent time patterns. Overall, our diffusion model results and mean RTs seem to be better explained by participant’s time expectancies.

[1]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Modes of Linkage Between Perception and Action , 1984 .

[3]  Richard Schweickert,et al.  A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a stroop task , 1978 .

[4]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[7]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Chronometric Evidence for Central Postponement in Temporally Overlapping Tasks , 2003 .

[8]  A. Kristofferson,et al.  The timing of interresponse intervals , 1973 .

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

[10]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Timing, sequencing, and executive control in repetitive movement production. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Mariano Sigman,et al.  A shared cortical bottleneck underlying Attentional Blink and Psychological Refractory Period , 2012, NeuroImage.

[12]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[13]  S. Los,et al.  Dissociative patterns of foreperiod effects in temporal discrimination and reaction time tasks , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  Anthony N. Carlsen,et al.  Evidence for a response preparation bottleneck during dual-task performance: effect of a startling acoustic stimulus on the psychological refractory period. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[15]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks , 2008, Neural Computation.

[16]  A. Kristofferson,et al.  Response delays and the timing of discrete motor responses , 1973 .

[17]  Armin Stock,et al.  A short history of ideo-motor action , 2004, Psychological research.

[18]  A. Voss,et al.  Diffusion models in experimental psychology: a practical introduction. , 2013, Experimental psychology.

[19]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  The locus of temporal preparation effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  E. Ruthruff,et al.  On the nonautomaticity of visual word processing: electrophysiological evidence that word processing requires central attention. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  Ritske de Jong,et al.  THE ROLE OF PREPARATION IN OVERLAPPING-TASK PERFORMANCE , 1995 .

[22]  R W Proctor,et al.  Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  E. Hazeltine,et al.  Do small dual-task costs reflect ideomotor compatibility or the absence of crosstalk? , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  S. Eickhoff,et al.  When Specific Action Biases Meet Nonspecific Preparation: Event Repetition Modulates the Variable-Foreperiod Effect , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  D A Rosenbaum,et al.  Timing and reaction time. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[26]  Andrea Kiesel,et al.  Anticipation of Time Spans: New Data from the Foreperiod Paradigm and the Adaptation of a Computational Model , 2009, ABiALS.

[27]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance , 2002, Psychological research.

[28]  Roy Luria,et al.  Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  E. Hazeltine,et al.  Investigating perfect timesharing: the relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  Victor Mittelstädt,et al.  Separating Limits on Preparation Versus Online Processing in Multitasking Paradigms: Evidence for Resource Models , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  D. Navon,et al.  Queuing or Sharing? A Critical Evaluation of the Single-Bottleneck Notion , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[32]  Andrea Kiesel,et al.  Cognitive Structure, Flexibility, and Plasticity in Human Multitasking—An Integrative Review of Dual-Task and Task-Switching Research , 2018, Psychological bulletin.

[33]  Andreas Voss,et al.  Experimental validation of the diffusion model based on a slow response time paradigm , 2019, Psychological research.

[34]  Leon M. Solomons,et al.  Normal motor automatism. , 1896 .

[35]  Marco Steinhauser,et al.  Serial or parallel processing in dual tasks: what is more effortful? , 2009, Psychophysiology.

[36]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Effects of practice on task architecture: Combined evidence from interference experiments and random-walk models of decision making , 2011, Cognition.

[37]  Rico Fischer,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning , Memory , and Cognition Context-Sensitive Adjustment of Cognitive Control in Dual-Task Performance , 2013 .

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

[39]  Rico Fischer,et al.  Predicting high levels of multitasking reduces between-tasks interactions. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Modeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions , 1998 .

[41]  C. W. Telford The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses , 1931 .

[42]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations , 2018, Psychological research.

[43]  Tilo Strobach,et al.  Mechanisms of Practice-Related Reductions of Dual-Task Interference with Simple Tasks: Data and Theory , 2017, Advances in cognitive psychology.

[44]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance , 2014, Cognition.

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

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

[47]  R. Näätänen,et al.  Foreperiod and simple reaction time. , 1981 .

[48]  R. Proctor,et al.  Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Transferability of Dual-Task Coordination Skills after Practice with Changing Component Tasks , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[50]  G D Logan,et al.  Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[51]  David Richardson,et al.  Markov chain Monte Carlo: an introduction for epidemiologists. , 2013, International journal of epidemiology.

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

[53]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Practice-related reduction of dual-task costs under conditions of a manual-pedal response combination , 2011 .

[54]  Daniel Bratzke,et al.  Temporal discrimination of one’s own reaction times in dual-task performance: Context effects and methodological constraints , 2016, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[55]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Formation and representation of temporal reference information , 2016, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.

[56]  R. B. Freeman,et al.  Cognition and Motor Processes , 1983 .

[57]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  Two types of backward crosstalk: Sequential modulations and evidence from the diffusion model. , 2019, Acta psychologica.

[58]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Are model parameters linked to processing stages? An empirical investigation for the ex-Gaussian, ex-Wald, and EZ diffusion models , 2019, Psychological Research.

[59]  Thomas V. Wiecki,et al.  HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the Drift-Diffusion Model in Python , 2013, Front. Neuroinform..

[60]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  A Diffusion Model Analysis of the Response-Effect Compatibility Effect , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[61]  Ronald Hübner,et al.  Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets , 2009, Psychological research.

[62]  Andreas Voss,et al.  Assessing cognitive processes with diffusion model analyses: a tutorial based on fast-dm-30 , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[63]  Torsten Schubert,et al.  Practice-related optimization and transfer of executive functions: a general review and a specific realization of their mechanisms in dual tasks , 2014, Psychological Research.

[64]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[65]  Eva Röttger,et al.  Investigating the characteristics of “not responding”: backward crosstalk in the PRP paradigm with forced vs. free no-go decisions , 2017, Psychological research.

[66]  Scott Watter,et al.  PRP training shows Task1 response selection is the locus of the backward response compatibility effect , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[67]  H. Pashler,et al.  Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference? , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[68]  Asher Cohen,et al.  Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance , 2011, Psychological research.

[69]  Rico Fischer,et al.  Efficient multitasking: parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[70]  Eric Ruthruff,et al.  How strategic is the central bottleneck: can it be overcome by trying harder? , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[71]  J. A. Adams,et al.  Anticipatory timing of continuous and discrete responses. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[72]  Wouter Kruijne,et al.  Hazard Versus History: Temporal Preparation Is Driven by Past Experience , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[73]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies , 2006, Psychological research.

[74]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.