The source of dual-task limitations: serial or parallel processing of multiple response selections?

Jump Height and Hip Power Decrease During Cognitive Loading Regardless of Sex: Implications for Sport Performance Metrics

ABSTRACT

Shumski, EJ, Lempke, LB, Johnson, RS, Oh, J, Schmidt, JD, and Lynall, RC. Jump height and hip power decrease during cognitive loading regardless of sex: implications for sport performance metrics. J Strength Cond Res 37(4): 793-798, 2023-Sex and cognitive loading separately influence jumping performance. However, it is unknown how cognitive loading influences jump performance and how sex and cognitive loading interact. The purpose of our study was to determine if an interaction existed between sex and cognitive loading for the dependent variables jump height, ground contact time, reactive strength index, vertical stiffness, impulse, and lower extremity joint power during a double limb drop vertical jump. Twenty-one male (23.2 ± 2.5 years, 180.8 ± 8.4 cm, 80.4 ± 10.2 kg) and 20 female (21.7 ± 1.0 years, 163.7 ± 8.2 cm, 61.2 ± 9.4 kg) physically active individuals participated. Subjects jumped from a 30 cm box placed 50% of their height away from 2 force plates under single-task and dual-task (serial 6s or 7s) conditions. Separate 2 × 2 analyses of variance were used for all dependent variables (α = 0.05) with Bonferroni post hoc mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). There were no significant interactions for any outcomes ( p ≥ 0.190). Condition main effects demonstrated subjects jumped significantly higher (1.84 cm, 95% CI = 0.68-3.01, d = 0.26, p = 0.003) and with greater hip power (0.29 Watts·BW -1 ·HT -1 , 95% CI = 0.04-0.54, d = 0.21, p = 0.025) during single task compared with dual task. Sex main effects revealed males jumped higher (9.88 cm, 95% CI = 7.00-12.77, d = 2.17, p < 0.001), with greater reactive strength index (0.29, 95% CI = 0.17-0.41, d = 1.52, p < 0.001), greater ankle power (3.70 Watts·BW -1 ·HT -1 , 95% CI = 2.26-5.13, d = 1.64, p < 0.001), and greater knee power (5.00 Watts·BW -1 ·HT -1 , 95% CI = 3.25-6.75, d = 1.82, p < 0.001) compared with females. Jump performance is influenced by sex and dual-task conditions but not their interaction. To optimize jumping performance, testing should be completed without distractions (single task) to decrease cognitive loading.

The Effect of 2 Different Dual-Task Balance Training Methods on Balance and Gait in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of integrated and consecutive cognitive dual-task balance training in older adults on balance, fear of falling, and gait performance.

METHODS

Fifty-eight participants (age >65 years) were randomly assigned to an integrated dual-task training group (IDTT) (n = 29) and consecutive dual-task training group (CDTT) (n = 29). Balance exercises and cognitive tasks were performed simultaneously by the IDTT group and consecutively by the CDTT group for 8 weeks. Balance was assessed using the Berg Balance Scale as a primary outcome measure and the Timed "Up & Go" Test (TUG) (standard-cognitive), fear of falling was assessed using the Tinetti Falls Efficacy Scale, and gait speed was assessed using the 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT) (under single-task and dual-task conditions). All tests were performed before and after the training.

RESULTS

There was no difference in group-time interaction in the Berg Balance Scale, TUG-standard, 10MWT-single task, and 10MWT-dual task tests. Group-time interaction was different in the TUG-cognitive and Tinetti Falls Efficacy Scale scores. Also, the effect of time was significantly different in all scales except for the 10MWT-single task in both groups.

CONCLUSION

At the end of the 8-week training period, the impact of integrated and consecutive dual-task balance training on balance and gait performance in older adults was not statistically significantly different. This study suggests that consecutive dual-task balance training can be used as an alternative method to increase balance performance and gait speed in older adults who cannot perform integrated dual-task activities.

IMPACT

There were no significant differences between the effects of the 2 dual-task training methods on balance and gait speed, suggesting that the consecutive dual-task balance training method can be used to improve the balance and gait of older adults. CDTT can be performed safely and considered as an alternative method for use in many rehabilitation training programs with older adults who cannot perform simultaneous activities.

Investigation of reward effects in overlapping dual-task situations

In dual-task (DT) situations, performance in reaction time and error rates decrease compared with single-task situations. These performance decrements are usually explained with the serial processing at the response selection stage constituting a bottleneck. Evidence for this assumption stems from the observation that response times for the second task (task 2; RT 2) increase with decreasing stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA). In this study, we investigated the effect of reward on bottleneck processing in DTs. In Experiment 1, we addressed two questions. First, does reward provided for task 2 performance affect task 2 performance, or does it affect task 1 performance? To conclude whether reward affected task 2 or task 1 performance, we relied on the psychological refractory period paradigm (PRP) as a chronometric tool. Second, we asked for the locus of the reward effect within the DT stream. We demonstrated shorter RTs in task 1 in a rewarded compared with an un-rewarded condition indicating reward affected task 1 processing. Furthermore, this reward effect is propagated onto task 2 at short SOA suggesting that the locus of the reward effect can be pinpointed before or at the bottleneck of task 1. In Experiment 2, we tested for the locus of the effect propagation onto task 2. To this end, we implemented an additional difficulty manipulation of the response selection of task 2 and found that the reward effect is propagated from task 1 onto the response selection stage of task 2.

Electrophysiological evidence against parallel motor processing during multitasking

We combined behavioral measures with electrophysiological measures of motor activation (i.e., lateralized readiness potentials, LRPs) to disentangle the relative contribution of premotor and motor processes to multitasking interference in the prioritized processing paradigm. Specifically, we presented stimuli of two tasks (primary and background task) in each trial, but participants were instructed to perform the background task only if the primary task required no response. As expected, task performance was substantially influenced by a task probability manipulation: Background task responses were faster, psychological refractory period effects were smaller, and interference from the second task (i.e., backward compatibility effects) was larger when there was a larger probability that this task required a response. Critically, stimulus-locked and response-locked LRP analyses indicate that these behavioral effects of parallel processing were not driven by background task motor processing (e.g., motoric response activation) taking place during primary task processing. Instead, the LRP results suggest that these effects were exclusively localized during premotor stages of processing (e.g., response selection). Thus, the present results generally provide evidence for multitasking accounts allowing parallel task processing during response selection, whereas the task-specific motor responses are activated in a serial manner. One plausible account is that multiple task information sources can be processed in parallel, with sharing of limited cognitive resources depending on task relevance, but a primary and still active task goal prevents motor activation related to the goals of other tasks in order to avoid outcome conflict.

The Dual-Task Cost Is Due to Neural Interferences Disrupting the Optimal Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of the Competing Tasks

Dual-tasking is extremely prominent nowadays, despite ample evidence that it comes with a performance cost: the Dual-Task (DT) cost. Neuroimaging studies have established that tasks are more likely to interfere if they rely on common brain regions, but the precise neural origin of the DT cost has proven elusive so far, mostly because fMRI does not record neural activity directly and cannot reveal the key effect of timing, and how the spatio-temporal neural dynamics of the tasks coincide. Recently, DT electrophysiological studies in monkeys have recorded neural populations shared by the two tasks with millisecond precision to provide a much finer understanding of the origin of the DT cost. We used a similar approach in humans, with intracranial EEG, to assess the neural origin of the DT cost in a particularly challenging naturalistic paradigm which required accurate motor responses to frequent visual stimuli (task T1) and the retrieval of information from long-term memory (task T2), as when answering passengers’ questions while driving. We found that T2 elicited neuroelectric interferences in the gamma-band (>40 Hz), in key regions of the T1 network including the Multiple Demand Network. They reproduced the effect of disruptive electrocortical stimulations to create a situation of dynamical incompatibility, which might explain the DT cost. Yet, participants were able to flexibly adapt their strategy to minimize interference, and most surprisingly, reduce the reliance of T1 on key regions of the executive control network-the anterior insula and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex-with no performance decrement.

Dual-memory retrieval efficiency after practice: effects of strategy manipulations

The study investigated practice effects, instruction manipulations, and the associated cognitive architecture of dual-memory retrieval from a single cue. In two experiments, we tested predictions about the presence of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval within the framework of the set-cue bottleneck model. Both experiments included three experimental laboratory sessions and involved computerized assessments of dual-memory retrieval performance with strategy instruction manipulations. In Experiment 1, subjects were assigned to three distinct dual-task practice instruction groups: (1) a neutral instruction group without a specific direction on how to solve the task (i.e., neutral instruction), (2) an instruction to synchronize the responses (i.e., synchronize instruction), and (3) an instruction to use a sequential response style (i.e., immediate instruction). Results indicate that strategy instructions are able to effectively influence dual retrieval during practice. Mainly, the instruction to synchronize responses led to the presence of learned retrieval parallelism. Experiment 2 provided an assessment of the cognitive processing architecture of dual-memory retrieval. The results provide support for the presence of a structural bottleneck that cannot be eliminated by extensive practice and instruction manipulations. Further results are discussed with respect to the set-cue bottleneck model.

Cue frequency modulates cuing effect either in the presence or in the absence of distractors

A novel, salient stimulus, even though it is not related to a concurrent goal-directed behavior, powerfully captures people's attention. While this stimulus-driven attentional capture has long been presumed to take place in a purely bottom-up or automatic manner, growing evidence shows that a number of top-down factors modulate the stimulus-driven capture of attention. Recent studies pointed out the cue presentation frequency is such a factor; the capture of attention by a salient, task-irrelevant cue increased as its presentation frequency decreased. Expanding these studies, we investigated how the modulatory effect of the cue frequency differs depending on the level of competition between multiple stimuli. As results, we found that an infrequently presented cue exerted stronger capture effect than a frequently presented cue, either in the presence or in the absence of distractors. Importantly, in the absence of distractors, performance difference elicited by the frequently present cue was due to non-attentional sensory artifacts or decisional noise. However, the same frequent cue evoked genuine attentional effect when multiple distractors accompanied the target, evoking stimulus-driven competition. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the effect of attentional cue is modulated by cue frequency, and this modulation is also affected by stimulus-driven competition.

Shielding and relaxation in multitasking: Prospect of reward counteracts relaxation of task shielding in multitasking

Performing two similar tasks at the same time requires the shielding of the prioritized Task 1 from interference of additional Task 2 processing (between-task interference). In the present study we tested how motivational factors such as prospect of reward might drive shifts between increased proactive control, enabling task shielding, and reduced proactive control resulting in relaxed task shielding. In Experiment 1 an instruction-induced prioritization of Task 1 over Task 2 resulted in initially reduced between-task interference. With increasing time on task, however, between-task interference continuously increased, presumably because participants engaged less in proactive control resulting in reduced task shielding. In Experiment 2 the prospect of reward activated proactive control as indicated by reduced between-task interference in the Reward than in the No reward condition. In Experiment 3, we directly compared the performance of a Reward and a No reward group in a between-subject design. Whereas between-task interference again continuously increased over time in the No reward group, indicating a relaxed mode of task shielding, the Reward group displayed constant small between-task interference over time, suggesting maintained high levels of task shielding. Together these findings speak in favor of an impressive flexibility in regulating cognitive control engagement in multitasking situations. This not only shows the capacity for optimization of multitasking performance by motivational incentives but also further supports assumptions of the strategic nature of assumed processing limitations (bottlenecks) in dual-task performance.

Common Cognitive Control Processes Underlying Performance in Task-Switching and Dual-Task Contexts

In the present study, participants performed highly comparable task-switching and dual-task paradigms, and the paradigm-specific performance costs were analysed in the context of the commonly postulated core components of cognitive control (i.e., working memory updating, inhibition, and shifting). In the task-switching paradigm, we found switch costs (i.e., switch trials vs. repetition trials) and mixing costs (i.e., repetition trials in mixed-task blocks vs. single-task trials). In the dual-task paradigm, we observed a psychological refractory period (PRP) effect (i.e., Task 2 [T2] performance after short stimulus-onset asynchrony [SOA] vs. long SOA), dual-task costs (i.e., T2 dual-task performance with a long SOA in trials with a task repetition between Task 1 [T1] and T2 vs. single-task performance), and switch costs in T2 (i.e., dual-task performance in trials with a switch between T1 and T2 vs. dual-task performance in trials with a repetition between T1 and T2). A within-subjects comparison of the performance costs showed a correlation between mixing costs and dual-task costs, possibly indicating shared underlying cognitive control processes in terms of working memory updating. Surprisingly, there was also a correlation between switch costs and the PRP effect, presumably suggesting that cognitive control, as opposed to passive queuing of response selection processes, contributes to the PRP effect.

The role of multisensory interplay in enabling temporal expectations

Temporal regularities can guide our attention to focus on a particular moment in time and to be especially vigilant just then. Previous research provided evidence for the influence of temporal expectation on perceptual processing in unisensory auditory, visual, and tactile contexts. However, in real life we are often exposed to a complex and continuous stream of multisensory events. Here we tested - in a series of experiments - whether temporal expectations can enhance perception in multisensory contexts and whether this enhancement differs from enhancements in unisensory contexts. Our discrimination paradigm contained near-threshold targets (subject-specific 75% discrimination accuracy) embedded in a sequence of distractors. The likelihood of target occurrence (early or late) was manipulated block-wise. Furthermore, we tested whether spatial and modality-specific target uncertainty (i.e. predictable vs. unpredictable target position or modality) would affect temporal expectation (TE) measured with perceptual sensitivity (d^') and response times (RT). In all our experiments, hidden temporal regularities improved performance for expected multisensory targets. Moreover, multisensory performance was unaffected by spatial and modality-specific uncertainty, whereas unisensory TE effects on d^' but not RT were modulated by spatial and modality-specific uncertainty. Additionally, the size of the temporal expectation effect, i.e. the increase in perceptual sensitivity and decrease of RT, scaled linearly with the likelihood of expected targets. Finally, temporal expectation effects were unaffected by varying target position within the stream. Together, our results strongly suggest that participants quickly adapt to novel temporal contexts, that they benefit from multisensory (relative to unisensory) stimulation and that multisensory benefits are maximal if the stimulus-driven uncertainty is highest. We propose that enhanced informational content (i.e. multisensory stimulation) enables the robust extraction of temporal regularities which in turn boost (uni-)sensory representations.

Central attention is serial, but midlevel and peripheral attention are parallel-A hypothesis

In this brief review, we argue that attention operates along a hierarchy from peripheral through central mechanisms. We further argue that these mechanisms are distinguished not just by their functional roles in cognition, but also by a distinction between serial mechanisms (associated with central attention) and parallel mechanisms (associated with midlevel and peripheral attention). In particular, we suggest that peripheral attentional deployments in distinct representational systems may be maintained simultaneously with little or no interference, but that the serial nature of central attention means that even tasks that largely rely on distinct representational systems will come into conflict when central attention is demanded. We go on to review both the behavioral and neural evidence for this prediction. We conclude that even though the existing evidence mostly favors our account of serial central and parallel noncentral attention, we know of no experiment that has conclusively borne out these claims. As such, this article offers a framework of attentional mechanisms that will aid in guiding future research on this topic.

Hyperbaric Oxygen Environment Can Enhance Brain Activity and Multitasking Performance

Background: The Brain uses 20% of the total oxygen supply consumed by the entire body. Even though, <10% of the brain is active at any given time, it utilizes almost all the oxygen delivered. In order to perform complex tasks or more than one task (multitasking), the oxygen supply is shifted from one brain region to another, via blood perfusion modulation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether a hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) environment, with increased oxygen supply to the brain, will enhance the performance of complex and/or multiple activities. Methods: A prospective, double-blind randomized control, crossover trial including 22 healthy volunteers. Participants were asked to perform a cognitive task, a motor task and a simultaneous cognitive-motor task (multitasking). Participants were randomized to perform the tasks in two environments: (a) normobaric air (1 ATA 21% oxygen) (b) HBO (2 ATA 100% oxygen). Two weeks later participants were crossed to the alternative environment. Blinding of the normobaric environment was achieved in the same chamber with masks on while hyperbaric sensation was simulated by increasing pressure in the first minute and gradually decreasing to normobaric environment prior to tasks performance. Results: Compared to the performance at normobaric conditions, both cognitive and motor single tasks scores were significantly enhanced by HBO environment (p < 0.001 for both). Multitasking performance was also significantly enhanced in HBO environment (p = 0.006 for the cognitive part and p = 0.02 for the motor part). Conclusions: The improvement in performance of both single and multi-tasking while in an HBO environment supports the hypothesis which according to, oxygen is indeed a rate limiting factor for brain activity. Hyperbaric oxygenation can serve as an environment for brain performance. Further studies are needed to evaluate the optimal oxygen levels for maximal brain performance.

Visuomotor behaviors and performance in a dual-task paradigm with and without vibrotactile feedback when using a myoelectric controlled hand

Prosthesis users allocate visual attention to their prosthetic hand while performing activities of daily living (ADLs), due to absence of sensory feedback. Dual-task assignments present competition for visual attention and may affect the performance of ADLs. Vibrotactile feedback (VTF) is a frequently-used method to provide prosthesis users with tactile feedback. However, the effect of adding VTF on visual attention and performance in a motor dual-task paradigm has not been investigated. Our aim was to compare visual attention and performance during ADLs in a motor dual-task paradigm when using binary VTF and without using VTF. Forty-three able-bodied subjects (age 26 ± 6.6 years) had a myoelectric-controlled hand attached to their right hand. The dual task comprised of a computer game played with the left hand, while manipulating objects with the artificial hand. This was performed with and without VTF in a counter-balanced order of two conditions. An eye-tracker monitored visual attention, while time to complete each task and the time the virtual car went off-road were recorded. No significant differences were found in visual attention or in performance time between the two conditions. Further examination of adding VTF to prosthesis users is recommended, with disrupted visual feedback and basic grasping tasks.

Efficient multitasking: parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks

In the context of performance optimizations in multitasking, a central debate has unfolded in multitasking research around whether cognitive processes related to different tasks proceed only sequentially (one at a time), or can operate in parallel (simultaneously). This review features a discussion of theoretical considerations and empirical evidence regarding parallel versus serial task processing in multitasking. In addition, we highlight how methodological differences and theoretical conceptions determine the extent to which parallel processing in multitasking can be detected, to guide their employment in future research. Parallel and serial processing of multiple tasks are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, questions focusing exclusively on either task-processing mode are too simplified. We review empirical evidence and demonstrate that shifting between more parallel and more serial task processing critically depends on the conditions under which multiple tasks are performed. We conclude that efficient multitasking is reflected by the ability of individuals to adjust multitasking performance to environmental demands by flexibly shifting between different processing strategies of multiple task-component scheduling.

Experience of Time by People on the Go

We explore the psychological interface of time and motion. Locomotion, the proclivity toward movement and change, constitutes a significant determinant of persons’ orientation toward time, both as a valuable resource and as a flow advancing from past to future. High locomotors act quickly, multitask and refrain from procrastination, thus conserving time as a resource. Their preoccupation with movement, moreover, affects their relation to the flow of time. High locomotors are future oriented and eschew preoccupation with the past. They are optimistic, experience little regret, generate few counterfactuals, feel little guilt about past wrongdoings, and leave behind past friends. Evidence accumulates that locomotors’ “fast forward” orientation pervades diverse aspects of their behavior and has significant consequences for individuals and societies.