Multitasking costs in close-head injury patients

The issue of whether severe close-head injury (CHI) patients suffer from disproportionate dual-task deficits compared with matched controls was investigated in two experiments. In the first experiment, either one or three masked letters were presented at the center of a monitor, followed by a pure tone at variable stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs). In half of the blocks of trials, the task on the letters required a delayed report of the letters at the end of each trial; in the other half of the blocks, the letters had to be ignored. The tone task always required an immediate manual response based on the tone pitch. In the second experiment, either three masked letters or three masked digits were presented with equal probability in each trial, followed by a tone at variable SOAs. The task required the delayed report of the characters only if they were letters, or ignoring the characters if they were digits. In both experiments, CHI patients and matched controls both exhibited an SOA-locked slowing of the reaction time (RT) to the tone: When characters had to be encoded for delayed report, tone RT increased progressively as SOA was decreased. The SOA effect on tone RT was more pronounced for CHI patients than for controls, suggesting that a substantial component of the slower processing time for CHI patients was related to a selective increase at a central stage of processing shared by the two tasks. Implications for models of the CHI effects on human performance are discussed.

[1]  N. Brooks Closed head injury : psychological, social, and family consequences , 1984 .

[2]  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 .

[3]  C. Umilta,et al.  Executive Functioning Following Mild Closed Head Injury , 1996, Cortex.

[4]  A. T. Welford,et al.  Evidence of a Single-Channel Decision Mechanism Limiting Performance in a Serial Reaction Task* , 1959 .

[5]  Franca Stablum,et al.  Rehabilitation of executive deficits in closed head injury and anterior communicating artery aneurysm patients , 2000, Psychological research.

[6]  A. Welford THE ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD’ AND THE TIMING OF HIGH‐SPEED PERFORMANCE—A REVIEW AND A THEORY , 1952 .

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

[8]  Mark D'Esposito,et al.  Working memory impairments in traumatic brain injury: evidence from a dual-task paradigm , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  E. Miller,et al.  Simple and choice reaction time following severe head injury. , 1970, Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior.

[10]  B Jennett,et al.  Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. , 1975, Lancet.

[11]  H S Levin,et al.  The Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test: A Practical Scale to Assess Cognition after Head Injury , 1979, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[12]  Kin Fai Ellick Wong The Relationship between Attentional Blink and Psychological Refractory Period , 2002 .

[13]  Wiebo Brouwer,et al.  Mental Fatigue after Very Severe Closed Head Injury: Sustained Performance, Mental Effort and Distress at Two Levels of Workload in a Driving Simulator , 1999 .

[14]  B. Bussel,et al.  Working memory and supervisory control after severe closed-head injury. A study of dual task performance and random generation. , 1996, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[15]  C. L. M. The Psychology of Attention , 1890, Nature.

[16]  W. Brouwer,et al.  Central executive aspects of attention in subacute severe and very severe closed head injury patients: Planning, inhibition, flexibility, and divided attention , 1996 .

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

[18]  Steven W. Keele,et al.  Attention and human performance , 1973 .

[19]  B. Wilson,et al.  Is there a central executive deficit after severe head injury? , 1992 .

[21]  J. Vilkki,et al.  Dual task performance after focal cerebral lesions and closed head injuries , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  J. Ponsford,et al.  Attentional deficits following closed-head injury. , 1992, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[23]  F. Stablum,et al.  Selective effect of closed-head injury on central resource allocation: evidence from dual-task performance , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  D. Alan Allport,et al.  SHIFTING INTENTIONAL SET - EXPLORING THE DYNAMIC CONTROL OF TASKS , 1994 .

[25]  J. Ponsford,et al.  The use of a rating scale of attentional behaviour , 1991 .

[26]  W. G. Koster,et al.  The psychological refractory period , 1966 .

[27]  S. Monsell,et al.  Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. , 1995 .

[28]  W. Lishman Closed Head Injury Psychological, social, and family consequences , 1984 .

[29]  B. Jennett,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME AFTER SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE A Practical Scale , 1975, The Lancet.

[30]  S. Monsell Control of mental processes , 2021, Unsolved Mysteries of the Mind.

[31]  M. Humphreys,et al.  Effects of closed-head injury on attentional processes: an information-processing stage analysis. , 1990, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

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

[33]  E Ruthruff,et al.  Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[36]  R. Dell’Acqua,et al.  Visual encoding of patterns is subject to dual-task interference , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[37]  H. Pashler,et al.  Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  A Solution to the Effect of Sample Size on Outlier Elimination , 1994 .

[39]  M. Schmitter-Edgecombe,et al.  Effects of severe closed-head injury on three stages of information processing. , 1992, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[40]  F. Ferraro Cognitive Slowing in Closed-Head Injury , 1996, Brain and Cognition.

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

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

[43]  I. Robertson,et al.  `Oops!': Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[44]  Peter C. Van Wolffelaar,et al.  Divided Attention 5 to 10 Years after Severe Closed Head Injury , 1989, Cortex.

[45]  H. Pashler,et al.  Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement? , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[46]  Norman W. Park,et al.  Divided attention impairments after traumatic brain injury , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[47]  B. Deelman,et al.  Deficits of attention after closed-head injury: slowness only? , 1996, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[48]  X. Seron,et al.  Selective Impairment of the Central Executive Component of Working Memory - a Single Case-study , 1992 .

[49]  C. Umilta,et al.  Attention and Control Deficits Following Closed Head Injury , 1994, Cortex.

[50]  R. Dell’Acqua,et al.  The Demonstration of Short-Term Consolidation , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.