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

Examining the cognitive processes underlying resumption costs in task-interruption contexts: Decay or inhibition of suspended task goals?

To examine whether an ongoing primary task is inhibited when switching to an interruption task, we implemented the n - 2 backward inhibition paradigm into a task-interruption setting. In two experiments, subjects performed two primary tasks (block-wise manipulation) consisting of a predefined sequence of three subtasks. The primary tasks differed regarding whether the last subtask switched or repeated relative to the penultimate subtask, resulting in n - 1 switch subtasks (e.g., ABC) and n - 1 repetition subtasks (e.g., ACC) as the last subtask of the primary task. Occasionally, an interruption task was introduced before the last subtask of a primary task, changing the last subtask of the primary task from a n - 1 switch subtask to a n - 2 switch subtask (e.g., AB → secondary task → C) and from a n - 1 repetition subtask to a n - 2 repetition subtask (e.g., AC → secondary task → C). In two experiments with different degrees of response-set overlap between the interruption task and the subtasks of the primary task, we observed that switching back from the interruption task to the primary task resulted in n - 2 switch costs in the first subtask after the interruption (i.e., worse performance in n - 2 switch subtasks than in n - 2 repetition subtasks). This n - 2 switch cost was replicated in a third experiment in which we used a predefined sequence of four subtasks instead of three subtasks. Our finding of n - 2 switch costs suggest that the last subtask performed before the interruption remains activated when switching to the interruption task.

Immediate and short-term effects of single-task and motor-cognitive dual-task on executive function

OBJECTIVES

Executive function plays an important role in our daily life and can be affected by both single task (acute aerobic exercise or cognitive training) and dual-task (acute motor-cognitive training) interventions. Here we explored the immediate and short-term effect on executive function to texted whether dual-task interventions are more effective at promoting executive function.

METHODS

Forty-six young men were recruited (mean age: 20.65 years) and assigned randomly to aerobic exercise (n = 15), cognitive training (n = 15), or dual-task (n = 16) groups. Executive functions were assessed before, immediately after, and 30 min after intervention using Go/No-go, 2-back, and More-Odd-Shifting tests.

RESULTS

Working memory function improved after all three interventions (significant Time effect, F(2,86) = 7.05, p = 0.001). Performance on the 2-back test was significantly better immediately after dual-task intervention (p = 0.038) and the response time was shorter (p = 0.023). Performance on the More-Odd-Shifting test improved over time (significant Time effect, F(2,86) = 30.698, p = 0.01), both immediately after the dual-task intervention (p = 0.015), and 30 min later (p = 0.001). Shifting-test performance was also better immediately after (p = 0.005) and 30 min after (p < 0.001) aerobic exercise.

CONCLUSION

Executive function was enhanced by single-task (acute aerobic exercise or cognitive training) and dual-task interventions. The effect continued for 30 min after both the single-task aerobic exercise and the dual-task intervention. For short-term intervention, the dual-task was not more effective than either of the single tasks.

Neural substrates of the executive function construct, age-related changes, and task materials in adolescents and adults: ALE meta-analyses of 408 fMRI studies

To explore the neural substrates of executive function (EF), we conducted an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of 408 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies (9639 participants, 7587 activation foci, 518 experimental contrasts) covering three fundamental EF subcomponents: inhibition, switching, and working memory. Our results found that activation common to all three EF subcomponents converged in the multiple-demand network across adolescence and adulthood. The function of EF with the multiple-demand network involved, especially for the prefrontal cortex and the parietal regions, could not be mature until adulthood. In adolescents, only working memory could be separable from common EF, whereas in adults, the three EF subcomponents could be separable from common EF. However, findings of switching in adolescents should be treated with substantial caution and may be exploratory due to limited data available on switching tasks. For task materials, inhibition and working memory showed both domain generality and domain specificity, undergirded by the multiple-demand network, as well as different brain regions in response to verbal and nonverbal task materials, respectively. In contrast, switching showed only domain generality with no activation specialized for either verbal or nonverbal task materials. These findings, taken together, support and contribute to the unitary-diverse nature of EF such that EF should be interpreted in an integrative model that relies on the integration of the EF construct, development, and task materials.

Moderate aerobic exercise, but not anticipation of exercise, improves cognitive control

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests a single bout of exercise can improve cognitive control. However, many studies only include assessments after exercise. It is unclear whether exercise changes as a result, or in anticipation, of exercise.

OBJECTIVE

To examine changes in cognitive control due to moderate aerobic exercise, and anticipation of such exercise.

METHODS

Thirty-one young healthy adults (mean age 22 years; 55% women) completed three conditions (randomized order): 1) exercise (participants anticipated and completed exercise); 2) anticipation (participants anticipated exercise but completed rest); and 3) rest (participants anticipated and completed rest). Cognitive control was assessed with a modified Flanker task at three timepoints: (1) early (20 min pre-intervention, pre-reveal in anticipation session); (2) pre-intervention (after reveal); and (3) post-intervention. An accuracy-weighted response time (RTLISAS) was the primary outcome, analyzed with a linear mixed effects modeling approach.

RESULTS

There was an interaction between condition and time (p = 0.003) and between session and time (p = 0.015). RTLISAS was better post-exercise than post-rest and post-deception, but was similar across conditions at other timepoints. RTLISAS improved across time in session 1 and session 2, but did not improve over time in session 3. There were also main effects of condition (p = 0.024), session (p = 0.005), time (p<0.001), and congruency (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive control improved after moderate aerobic exercise, but not in anticipation of exercise. Improvements on a Flanker task were also observed across sessions and time, indicative of a learning effect that should be considered in study design and analyses.

Cue the effects: Stimulus-action effect modality compatibility and dual-task costs

The pairings of tasks' stimulus and response modalities affect the magnitude of dual-task costs. For example, dual-task costs are larger when a visual-vocal task is paired with an auditory-manual task compared with when a visual-manual task is paired with an auditory-vocal task. These results are often interpreted as reflecting increased crosstalk between central codes for each task. Here we examine a potential source: modality-based crosstalk between the stimuli and the response-induced sensory consequences (i.e., action effects). In five experiments, we manipulated experimentally induced action effects so that they were either modality-compatible or -incompatible with the stimuli. Action effects that were modality-compatible (e.g., visual stimulus, visual action effect) produced smaller dual-task costs than those that were modality-incompatible (e.g., visual stimulus, auditory action effect). Thus, the relationship between stimuli and action effects contributes to dual-task costs. Moreover, modality-compatible pairs showed an advantage compared with when no action effects were experimentally induced. These results add to a growing body of work demonstrating that postresponse sensory events affect response selection processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Putting a stereotype to the test: The case of gender differences in multitasking costs in task-switching and dual-task situations

According to a popular stereotype, women are better at multitasking than men, but empirical evidence for gender differences in multitasking performance is mixed. Previous work has focused on specific aspects of multitasking or has not considered gender differences in abilities contributing to multitasking performance. We therefore tested gender differences (N = 96, 50% female) in sequential (i.e., task switching) and concurrent (i.e., dual tasking) multitasking, while controlling for possible gender differences in working memory, processing speed, spatial abilities, and fluid intelligence. Applying two standard experimental paradigms allowed us to test multitasking abilities across five different empirical indices (i.e., performance costs) for both reaction time (RT) and accuracy measures, respectively. Multitasking resulted in substantial performance costs across all experimental conditions without a single significant gender difference in any of these ten measures, even when controlling for gender differences in underlying cognitive abilities. Thus, our results do not confirm the widespread stereotype that women are better at multitasking than men at least in the popular sequential and concurrent multitasking settings used in the present study.

Building the multitasking brain: An integrated perspective on functional brain activation during task-switching and dual-tasking

Multitasking behavior is associated with well-known performance costs, but the question of why individuals falter when attempting to manage multiple streams of information remains difficult to answer. One reason for this difficulty may be that multitasking costs are often characterized by isolating component processes that are studied largely independently. In this study, we instead integrate two commonly studied substrates of multitasking, task-switching and dual-tasking, within the same procedural context. This method allows not only a direct comparison of performance costs associated with different demand types but also examination of their interaction. We measured functional brain activation in thirty healthy young adults as they completed a block-design version of the task, observing consistent and separable patterns of frontoparietal activation as a function of demand type. Broadly, task-switching was associated with activation of left premotor and inferior parietal regions, and dual-tasking was associated with activation in regions of right prefrontal and inferior parietal cortex. In the interaction condition, we observed a distributed bilateral pattern of activation across the areas associated with each demand in isolation. These results provide both behavioral and neuroimaging evidence that task-switching and dual-tasking demands can be dissociated and contribute to multitasking costs in unique and separable ways.

Common and distinct neural correlates of dual-tasking and task-switching: a meta-analytic review and a neuro-cognitive processing model of human multitasking

Although there are well-known limitations of the human cognitive system in performing two tasks simultaneously (dual-tasking) or alternatingly (task-switching), the question for a common vs. distinct neural basis of these multitasking limitations is still open. We performed two Activation Likelihood Estimation meta-analyses of neuroimaging studies on dual-tasking or task-switching and tested for commonalities and differences in the brain regions associated with either domain. We found a common core network related to multitasking comprising bilateral intraparietal sulcus (IPS), left dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC), and right anterior insula. Meta-analytic contrasts revealed eight fronto-parietal clusters more consistently activated in dual-tasking (bilateral frontal operculum, dPMC, and anterior IPS, left inferior frontal sulcus and left inferior frontal gyrus) and, conversely, four clusters (left inferior frontal junction, posterior IPS, and precuneus as well as frontomedial cortex) more consistently activated in task-switching. Together with sub-analyses of preparation effects in task-switching, our results argue against purely passive structural processing limitations in multitasking. Based on these findings and drawing on current theorizing, we present a neuro-cognitive processing model of multitasking.