A Gratton-like effect concerning task order in dual-task situations

The electrophysiology of sequential adjustments of dual-task order coordination

Performing two tasks simultaneously involves the coordination of their processing. This task coordination is particularly required in dual-task situations with varying task orders. When task order switches between subsequent trials, task order coordination leads to task order switch costs in comparison with order repetitions. However, it is open, whether task order coordination is exclusively controlled by the relation of the task orders of the current and the previous trials, or whether additional conditions such as task order before the previous trial leads to a behavioral and neural adjustment of task order coordination. To answer this question, we reanalyzed the data of two previously published experiments with order-cued dual-task paradigms. We did so with regard to whether task order switch costs and the EEG component order-switch positivity in the current dual-task trial would be modulated by order switches vs. repetitions in the previous trial (Trial N-1). In Experiment 1, we found a modulation of the task order switch costs in RTs and response reversals; these costs were reduced after an order switch compared with order repetitions in Trial N-1. In Experiment 2, there were no effects on the task order switch costs in the behavioral data. Nonetheless, we found the order-switch positivity to be strongly modulated by the order transition of the previous trial in both experiments. The order-switch positivity was substantially reduced if the previous trial was an order switch (compared to an order repetition) by itself. This implies that order coordination of dual tasks is adjusted in a gradual way depending on trial's history.

Cognitive control and meta-control in dual-task coordination

When two tasks are presented simultaneously or in close succession, such as in the overlapping task paradigm of the psychological refractory period, dual-task performance on those tasks is usually impaired compared with separate single-task performance. Numerous theories explain these emerging dual-task costs in terms of the existence of capacity limitations in the constituent component tasks. The current paper proposes active dual-task coordination processes that work on the scheduling of these capacity-limited processes. Further, there are recent findings that point to a meta-cognitive control level in addition to these active coordination processes. This additional level's responsibility is to adjust the dual-task coordination of capacity-limited stages (i.e., coordination adjustment). I review evidence focusing on the existence of dual-task coordination processes and processes of coordination adjustment. The remainder of the paper elaborates on preliminary findings and points to the separability of these sets of processes, which is a key assumption of the framework of dual-task coordination adjustment.

Controlling response order without relying on stimulus order - evidence for flexible representations of task order

In dual-task situations, both component tasks are typically not executed simultaneously but rather one after another. Task order is usually determined based on bottom-up information provided by stimulus presentation order, but also affected by top-down factors such as instructions and/or differentially dominant component tasks (e.g., oculomotor task prioritization). Recent research demonstrated that in the context of a randomly switching stimulus order, task order representations can be integrated with specific component task information rather than being coded in a purely abstract fashion (i.e., by containing only generic order information). This conclusion was derived from observing consistently smaller task-order switch costs for a preferred (e.g., oculomotor-manual) versus a non-preferred (e.g., manual-oculomotor) task order (i.e., order-switch cost asymmetries). Since such a representational format might have been especially promoted by the sequential stimulus presentation employed, we investigated task-order representations in situations without any bottom-up influence of stimulus order. To this end, we presented task stimuli simultaneously and cued the required task-order in advance. Experiment 1 employed abstract order transition cues that only indicated a task-order repetition (vs. switch) relative to the previous trial, while Experiment 2 used explicit cues that unambiguously indicated the task-order. Experiment 1 revealed significant task-order switch costs only for the second task (of either task order) and no order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating a rather generic representation of task order. Experiment 2 revealed task-order switch costs in both component tasks with a trend toward order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating an integration of task order representations with component task information. These findings highlight an astonishing flexibility of mental task-order representations during task-order control.

Practice effects on dual-task order coordination and its sequential adjustment

When the performance of two tasks overlaps in time, performance impairments in one or both tasks are common. Various theoretical explanations for how component tasks are controlled in dual-task situations have been advanced. However, less attention has been paid to the issue of how two temporally overlapping tasks are appropriately coordinated in terms of their order. The current study focuses on two specific aspects of this task-order coordination: (1) the potential effects of practice on task-order coordination performance and (2) its relationships with cognitive meta-control mechanisms that adjust this coordination. These aspects were investigated in a visual-auditory dual-task combination with randomly changing task orders across trials after four sessions of dual-task practice (N = 24) and single-task practice (N = 24). The results demonstrated that task-order coordination improves during dual-task practice, and in contrast to the effects of single-task practice. Practice, on the other hand, did not show substantial evidence of an effect on the adjustment of task-order coordination. This practice-related dissociation is consistent with the assumption that (1) task-order coordination and (2) its sequential adjustment are separable sets of processes.

Benefits of repeated alternations - Task-specific vs. task-general sequential adjustments of dual-task order control

An important cognitive requirement in multitasking is the decision of how multiple tasks should be temporally scheduled (task order control). Specifically, task order switches (vs. repetitions) yield performance costs (i.e., task-order switch costs), suggesting that task order scheduling is a vital part of configuring a task set. Recently, it has been shown that this process takes specific task-related characteristics into account: task order switches were easier when switching to a preferred (vs. non-preferred) task order. Here, we ask whether another determinant of task order control, namely the phenomenon that a task order switch in a previous trial facilitates a task order switch in a current trial (i.e., a sequential modulation of task order switch effect) also takes task-specific characteristics into account. Based on three experiments involving task order switches between a preferred (dominant oculomotor task prior to non-dominant manual/pedal task) and a non-preferred (vice versa) order, we replicated the finding that task order switching (in Trial N) is facilitated after a previous switch (vs. repetition in Trial N - 1) in task order. There was no substantial evidence in favor of a significant difference when switching to the preferred vs. non-preferred order and in the analyses of the dominant oculomotor task and the non-dominant manual task. This indicates different mechanisms underlying the control of immediate task order configuration (indexed by task order switch costs) and the sequential modulation of these costs based on the task order transition type in the previous trial.

Subjective estimates of total processing time in dual-tasking: (some) good news for bad introspection

Previous studies have shown severe distortions of introspection about dual-task interference in the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm. The present study investigated participants’ ability to introspect about the total trial time in this paradigm, as this temporal information may arguably be more relevant for strategic task scheduling than subjective estimates of each task within the dual task. To this end, participants provided estimates of their reaction times (IRTs) for the two subtasks in one half of the experiment, and estimates of the total trial time (ITTs) in the other half of the experiment. Although the IRT results showed the typical unawareness of the PRP effect, ITTs reflected the effects of SOA and Task 2 difficulty on objective total trial time. Additional analyses showed that IRTs were influenced by the introspective task order; that is, the ITT pattern carried over to IRTs when IRTs were assessed in the second half of the experiment. Overall, the present results show that people are able to accurately introspect about total trial time in the PRP paradigm and thus provide some good news for bad introspection in the PRP paradigm.

Inter-Individual Differences in Executive Functions Predict Multitasking Performance - Implications for the Central Attentional Bottleneck

Human multitasking suffers from a central attentional bottleneck preventing parallel performance of central mental operations, leading to profound deferments in task performance. While previous research assumed that the deferment is caused by a mere waiting time (refractory period), we show that the bottleneck requires executive functions (EF; active scheduling account) accounting for a profound part of the deferment. Three participant groups with EF impairments (dyslexics, highly neurotics, deprived smokers) showed worse multitasking performance than respective control groups. Three further groups with EF improvements (video-gamers, bilinguals, coffee consumers) showed improved multitasking. Finally, three groups performed a dual-task and different measures of EF (reading span, rotation span, symmetry span) and showed significant correlations between multitasking performance and working memory capacity. Demands on EF during multitasking may cause more errors, mental fatigue and stress, with parts of the population being considerably more prone to this.

Trial-to-trial modulation of task-order switch costs survive long inter-trial intervals

BACKGROUND

Dual-tasking procedures often involve the successive presentation of two different stimuli, requiring participants to execute two tasks in a particular order. Performance in both tasks suffers if the order of the tasks is reversed (i.e., switched) compared to the directly preceding trial. This task-order switch cost is reduced, however, if the preceding trial itself involved a task-order switch compared to a task-order repetition (Strobach in Acta Psychol 217:103328, 2021). Theoretical accounts range from assumptions of top-down implementation of a task-order control set, or passive persistence thereof, to priming based on episodic binding of tasks and temporal positions. Here, we tested these accounts by investigating whether the sequential modulation decays as a function of the inter-trial interval.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Task-order switch costs were reliably reduced after a task-order switch (compared to after a task-order repetition) and this reduction did not decrease over inter-trial intervals ranging from 350 ms to 1,400 ms. Also replicating previous findings, for reaction times the reduction was driven by selective slowing in task-order repeat trials, suggesting increased response caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results are consistent with preparatory processes of task-order control or with episodic integration of task-order information but argue against accounts assuming short-lived, decaying task-order sets.

Task-order representations in dual tasks: Separate or integrated with component task sets?

In situations requiring the execution of two tasks at around the same time, we need to decide which of the tasks should be executed first. Previous research has revealed several factors that affect the outcome of such response order control processes, including bottom-up factors (e.g., the temporal order of the stimuli associated with the two tasks) and top-down factors (e.g., instructions). In addition, it has been shown that tasks associated with certain response modalities are preferably executed first (e.g., temporal prioritisation of tasks involving oculomotor responses). In this study, we focused on a situation in which task order has to be unpredictably switched from trial to trial and asked whether task-order representations are coded separately or integrated with the component task sets (i.e., in a task-specific manner). Across three experiments, we combined two tasks known to differ in prioritisation, namely an oculomotor and a manual (or pedal) task. The results indicated robust task-order switch costs (i.e., longer RTs when task order was switched vs. repeated). Importantly, the data demonstrate that it is possible to show an asymmetry of task-order switch costs: While these costs were of similar size for both task orders in one particular experimental setting with specific spatial task characteristics, two experiments consistently indicated that it was easier for participants to switch to their prioritised task order (i.e., to execute the dominant oculomotor task first). This suggests that in a situation requiring frequent task-order switches (indicated by unpredictable changes in stimulus order), task order is represented in an integrated, task-specific manner, bound to characteristics (here, associated effector systems) of the component tasks.