Skip to main content

Mijn bibliotheek

Shop

Nieuws
Boeken
Tijdschriften
E-learning
Web-tv
Video
Audio

Tips voor Mijn BSL

UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 1/2018

05-10-2017 | Original Article

Flexibility of individual multitasking strategies in task-switching with preview: are preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing dependent on between-task conflict?

Auteurs: Jovita Brüning, Dietrich Manzey

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2018

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

The prevalence and the efficiency of serial and parallel processing under multiple task demands are highly debated. In the present study, we investigated whether individual preferences for serial or overlapping (parallel) processing represent a permanent predisposition or depend on the risk of crosstalk between tasks. Two groups (n = 91) of participants were tested. One group performed a classical task switching paradigm, enforcing a strict serial processing of tasks. The second group of participants performed the same tasks in a task-switching-with-preview paradigm, recently introduced by Reissland and Manzey (2016), which in principle allows for overlapping processing of both tasks in order to compensate for switch costs. In one condition, the tasks included univalent task stimuli, whereas in the other bivalent stimuli were used, increasing risk of crosstalk and task confusion in case of overlapping processing. The general distinction of voluntarily occurring preferences for serial or overlapping processing when performing task switching with preview could be confirmed. Tracking possible processing mode adjustments between low- and high-crosstalk conditions showed that individuals identified as serial processors in the low-crosstalk condition persisted in their processing mode. In contrast, overlapping processors split up in a majority adjusting to a serial processing mode and a minority persisting in overlapping processing, when working with bivalent stimuli. Thus, the voluntarily occurring preferences for serial or overlapping processing seem to depend at least partially on the risk of crosstalk between tasks. Strikingly, in both crosstalk conditions the individual performance efficiency was the higher, the more they processed in parallel.
vorige artikel Exploring the repetition bias in voluntary task switching
volgende artikel Sources of interference in cross-modal action: response selection, crosstalk, and general dual-execution costs
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Note that, in the PRP literature the term “parallel” processing is used to describe concurrent processing exactly at the central stage of response selection. We prefer to use the term “overlapping” processing to refer to any partial or full concurrent processing of two tasks, which can include all processing stages.
 
2
Note that the letters ‘D’, ‘P’, ‘T’, and ‘W’ are pronounced [deː], [peː], [teː], and [veː] in German, while the letters ‘H’, ‘K’, ‘J’, and ‘Q’ are pronounced [haː], [kaː], [jɔt], and [kuː].
 
3
Note that we use the term “dual-tasking” for any situation where an individual has to cope with two tasks, including situations of real concurrent performance like in PRP-tasks, situations of classical task switching where individuals have to switch between two tasks, or situations of task switching which provide options of overlapping processing like in our TSWP paradigm.
 
Literatuur
Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT.
Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(5), 769–786. CrossRefPubMed
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23. CrossRef
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2003). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 145–199. CrossRef
Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 399–416. doi: 10.​1037/​a0034310. PubMed
Fischer, R., Miller, J., & Schubert, T. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory and Cognition, 35(7), 1685–1699. CrossRefPubMed
Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2007). High perceptual load makes everybody equal: eliminating individual differences in distractibility with load. Psychological Science, 18, 377–382. CrossRefPubMed
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2005). Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 581–590. CrossRefPubMed
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368–1384. PubMed
Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132, 30–43. CrossRefPubMed
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14, 89.
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. Variation in Working Memory, 1, 21–48.
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. doi: 10.​1037/​a0019842. CrossRefPubMed
Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 451–468. PubMed
Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 143–148. CrossRef
Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of visual selective attention: efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychological Science, 8(5), 395–396. CrossRef
Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets. Psychological Research, 73, 707–726. CrossRefPubMed
Lehle, C., Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Serial or parallel processing in dual tasks: what is more effortful? Psychophysiology, 46, 502–509. CrossRefPubMed
Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434. CrossRefPubMed
Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94(2), 145–188. CrossRef
Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2005). Increased control demand results in serial processing evidence from dual-task performance. Psychological Science, 16(10), 833–840. CrossRefPubMed
Meiran, N. (2010). Task switching: mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In R. R. Hassin, K. N. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self control in society, mind and brain (pp. 202–220). New York: Oxford University. CrossRef
Miller, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research, 70, 484–493. CrossRefPubMed
Mueller, S. T., & Piper, B. J. (2014). The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 222, 250–259. CrossRefPubMed
Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435–448. PubMed
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244. CrossRefPubMed
Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2012). Better not to deal with two tasks at the same time when stressed? Acute psychosocial stress reduces task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(3), 557–570. CrossRef
Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 164–171. CrossRef
Reissland, J., & Manzey, D. (2016). Serial or overlapping processing in multitasking as individual preference: effects of stimulus preview on task switching and concurrent dual-task performance. Acta Psychologica, 168, 27–40. CrossRefPubMed
Salvucci, D. D. (2013). Multitasking. In J. D. Lee & A. Kirlik (Eds.), The oxford handbook of cognitive engineering (pp. 57–65). New York: Oxford University.
Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 376–397. PubMed
Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101–108. doi: 10.​1111/​1467-9280.​00318. CrossRefPubMed
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274–286. CrossRefPubMed
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dualtask performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18. PubMed
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154. CrossRef
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. CrossRefPubMed
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101). New York: Academic Press.
Metagegevens
Titel
Flexibility of individual multitasking strategies in task-switching with preview: are preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing dependent on between-task conflict?
Auteurs
Jovita Brüning
Dietrich Manzey
Publicatiedatum
05-10-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0924-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2018

Psychological Research 1/2018 Naar de uitgave

Original Article

Movement timing and cognitive control: adult-age differences in multi-tasking

Original Article

The role of feedback delay in dual-task performance

Original Article

The dynamic balance between cognitive flexibility and stability: the influence of local changes in reward expectation and global task context on voluntary switch rate

Original Article

Action control in task switching: do action effects modulate N − 2 repetition costs in task switching?

Original Article

The impact of free-order and sequential-order instructions on task-order regulation in dual tasks

Original Article

Transfer of time-based task expectancy across different timing environments