Endogenous control of task-order preparation in variable dual tasks.
Journal
Psychological research
ISSN: 1430-2772
Titre abrégé: Psychol Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0435062
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
23
03
2019
accepted:
15
10
2019
pubmed:
2
11
2019
medline:
18
5
2021
entrez:
1
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Dual-task performance typically leads to performance impairments in comparison to single tasks (i.e., dual-task costs). The literature discusses the contribution to these dual-task costs due to (1) bottleneck limitations in the dual-component tasks and (2) executive control processes regulating access to this bottleneck. Previous studies investigated the characteristics of executive control processes primarily triggered by external stimulus information. In the present study, however, we investigated the existence as well as the characteristics of internally triggered and driven endogenous control processes to regulate bottleneck access. In detail, we presented dual-task blocks with varying task orders and informed participants in advance about repetitions of the same task order as well as switches between different task orders (i.e., task-order repetitions and switches were predictable). Experiment 1 demonstrated that task-order information and an increased preparation time generally increase the efficiency for endogenous task-order control and improves preparation for task-order switches. This finding is basically consistent with the assumption of the existence of endogenous control processes. Experiment 2, however, did not provide evidence that this endogenous control is related with working-memory maintenance mechanisms. Experiment 3 showed that endogenous control does not only fully complete task-order preparation but also requires exogenous, stimulus-driven components.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31667597
doi: 10.1007/s00426-019-01259-2
pii: 10.1007/s00426-019-01259-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
345-363Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : Schu 1397/7-1
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : Schu 1379/ 7-2
Références
Alport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting Intentional Set: Exploring the Dynamic Control of Tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29.
pubmed: 21961947
Band, G. P. H., & van Nes, F. T. (2006). Reconfiguration and the bottleneck: Does task switching affect the refractory period effect? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 593–623.
Braver, T. S., Cohen, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Jonides, J., Smith, E. E., & Noll, D. C. (1997). A parametric study of prefrontal cortex involvement in human working memory. Neuroimage, 5(1), 49–62.
pubmed: 9038284
de Jong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 48A(1), 2–25.
de Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2009). How task representations guide attention: Further evidence for the shielding function of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 477–486.
pubmed: 19271860
Dutilh, G., Vandekerckhove, J., Forstmann, B. U., Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Testing theories of post-error slowing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(2), 454–465.
Hartley, A. A., & Little, D. M. (1999). Age-related differences and similarities in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(4), 416–449.
Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52(4), 291–345.
pubmed: 16581054
Hazeltine, E., & Wifall, T. (2011). Searching working memory for the source of dual-task costs. Psychological Research, 75(6), 466–475.
pubmed: 21735042
Hendrich, E., Strobach, T., Buss, M., Müller, H. J., & Schubert, T. (2012). Temporal-order judgment of visual and auditory stimuli: Modulations in situations with and without stimulus discrimination. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 63.
pubmed: 22936902
pmcid: 3427541
Hirsch, P., Nolden, S., & Koch, I. (2017). Higher-order cognitive control in dual tasks: Evidence from task-pair switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(3), 569–580.
pubmed: 28080113
Hirsch, P., Nolden, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2018). Hierarchical task organization in dual tasks: Evidence for higher level task representations. Psychological Research, 82(4), 759–770.
pubmed: 28285364
Hübner, R., Futterer, T., & Steinhauser, M. (2001). On attentional control as a source of residual shift costs: Evidence from two-component task shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 640–653.
pubmed: 11394671
Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2009). Crossmodal action selection: Evidence from dual-task compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 38(4), 493–501.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 47–70.
Karbach, J., & Kray, J. (2009). How useful is executive control training? Age differences in near and far transfer of task-switching training. Developmental science, 12(6), 978–990.
pubmed: 19840052
Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874.
pubmed: 20804238
Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 557–583.
pubmed: 29517261
Kübler, S., Reimer, C. B., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2018). The impact of free-order and sequential-order instructions on task-order regulation in dual tasks. Psychological Research, 82(1), 40–53.
pubmed: 28856434
Leonhard, T., Ruiz Fernández, S., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2011). Dual-task processing when task 1 is hard and task 2 is easy: Reversed central processing order? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 115.
pubmed: 20718575
Liefooghe, B., Demanet, J., & Vandierendonck, A. (2009). Is advance reconfiguration in voluntary task switching affected by the design employed? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(5), 850–857.
pubmed: 19132632
Lien, M.-C., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Task switching in a hierarchical task structure: Evidence for the fragility of the task repetition benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(3), 697–713.
pubmed: 15099137
Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (2010). Attentional capture with rapidly changing attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 1–16.
pubmed: 20121291
Logan, G. D. (2003). Executive control of thought and action: In search of the wild homunculus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(2), 45–48.
Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 575–599.
pubmed: 12848327
Logan, G. D., Schneider, D. W., & Bundesen, C. (2007). Still clever after all these years: Searching for the homunculus in explicitly cued task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(4), 978–994.
pubmed: 17683241
Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 556–574.
pubmed: 12848326
Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2006). Dual route for subtask order control: Evidence from the psychological refractory paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 720–744.
pubmed: 16707359
MacDonald, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science, 288(5472), 1835–1838.
pubmed: 10846167
Maquestiaux, F., Hartley, A. A., & Bertsch, J. (2004). Can practice overcome age-related differences in the psychological refractory period effect? Psychology and Aging, 19(4), 649–667.
pubmed: 15584790
Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 362–372.
pubmed: 12776747
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1423–1442.
Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63(3–4), 234–249.
pubmed: 11004878
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104(4), 749–791.
Miller, J., & Durst, M. A. (2015). Comparison of the psychological refractory period and prioritized processing paradigms: Can the response-selection bottleneck model explain them both? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(5), 1420–1441.
pubmed: 26168143
Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 273–310.
pubmed: 19281972
Mittelstädt, V., & Miller, J. (2017). Separating limits on preparation versus online processing paradigms: Evidence for resource models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), 89–102.
pubmed: 27808552
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.
pubmed: 12639695
Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 493–516.
pubmed: 16822121
Müller, H. J., Reimann, B., & Krummenacher, J. (2003). Visual search for singleton feature targets across dimensions: Stimulus-and expectancy-driven effects in dimensional weighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 1021–1035.
pubmed: 14585020
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. Davidson, G. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Plenum.
Oberauer, K. (2009). Interference between storage and processing in working memory: Feature overwriting, not similarity-based competition. Memory & Cognition, 37(3), 346–357.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.
pubmed: 7972591
Philipp, A., & Koch, I. (2010). The integration of task-set components into cognitive task representations. Psychologica Belgica, 50, 383–411.
Rabbitt, P. M. A., & Vyas, S. M. (1970). An elementary preliminary taxonomy for some errors in laboratory choice RT tasks. Acta Psychologica, 33, 56–76.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763–797.
pubmed: 11518143
Ruiz Fernández, S., Leonhard, T., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Processing two tasks with varying task order: Central stage duration influences central processing order. Acta Psychologica, 137(1), 10–17.
pubmed: 21427007
Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2007). Task switching versus cue switching: Using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 370–378.
pubmed: 17352618
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–57.
Schubert, T. (2008). The central attentional limitation and executive control. Frontiers in Bioscience, 13(13), 3569–3580.
pubmed: 18508456
Schubert, T., & Strobach, T. (2018). Practice-related optimization of dual-task performance: Efficient task instantiation during overlapping task processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1884–1904.
pubmed: 30335413
Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: Dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biology, 4, e220.
pubmed: 16787105
pmcid: 1481521
Stelzel, C., Kraft, A., Brandt, S. A., & Schubert, T. (2008). Dissociable neural effects of task order control and task set maintenance during dual-task processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 613–628.
pubmed: 18052784
Strobach, T., Hendrich, E., Kübler, S., Müller, H., & Schubert, T. (2018). Processing order in dual-task situations: The “first-come, first-served” principle and the impact of task order instructions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1785–1803.
Strobach, T., Salminen, T., Karbach, J., & Schubert, T. (2014). Practice-related optimization and transfer of executive functions: A general review and a specific realization of their mechanisms in dual tasks. Psychological Research, 78(6), 836–851.
pubmed: 24668506
Strobach, T., Schütz, A., & Schubert, T. (2015). On the importance of Task 1 and error performance measures in PRP dual-task studies. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 403.
pubmed: 25904890
pmcid: 4387374
Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(1), 89–103.
pubmed: 2951490
Szameitat, A. J., Lepsien, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Sterr, A., & Schubert, T. (2006). Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: An event-related fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70(6), 541–552.
pubmed: 16142491
Szameitat, A. J., Schubert, T., Müller, K., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(8), 1184–1199.
pubmed: 12495525
Töllner, T., Strobach, T., Schubert, T., & Müller, H. J. (2012). The effect of task order predictability in audio-visual dual task performance: Just a central capacity limitation? Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 75.
pubmed: 22973208
pmcid: 3438480
Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626.
pubmed: 20565170
Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’and the timing of high-speed performance—A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43(1), 2–19.
Welford, A. T. (1980). The single-channel hypothesis. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 215–252). London: Academic Press.