Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multitasking costs in close-head injury patients

A fine-grained analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The issue of whether severe close-head injury (CHI) patients suffer from disproportionate dual-task deficits compared with matched controls was investigated in two experiments. In the first experiment, either one or three masked letters were presented at the center of a monitor, followed by a pure tone at variable stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs). In half of the blocks of trials, the task on the letters required a delayed report of the letters at the end of each trial; in the other half of the blocks, the letters had to be ignored. The tone task always required an immediate manual response based on the tone pitch. In the second experiment, either three masked letters or three masked digits were presented with equal probability in each trial, followed by a tone at variable SOAs. The task required the delayed report of the characters only if they were letters, or ignoring the characters if they were digits. In both experiments, CHI patients and matched controls both exhibited an SOA-locked slowing of the reaction time (RT) to the tone: When characters had to be encoded for delayed report, tone RT increased progressively as SOA was decreased. The SOA effect on tone RT was more pronounced for CHI patients than for controls, suggesting that a substantial component of the slower processing time for CHI patients was related to a selective increase at a central stage of processing shared by the two tasks. Implications for models of the CHI effects on human performance are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport DA, Styles EA, Hsieh S (1994) Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In: Umiltà C Moscovitch M (eds) Attention and Performance XV. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 421–452

  • Azouvi P, Jokic C, Van der Linden M, Marlier N, Bussel B (1996) Working memory and supervisory control after severe closed-head injury: a study of dual task performance and random generation. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 18:317–337

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks DN (1984) Closed head injury: psychological, social, and family consequences. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer WH, Ponds RWHM, Van Wolffelar PC, Van Zomeren AH (1989) Divided attention 5 to 10 years after severe closed head injury. Cortex 25:219–230

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong R (1993) Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:965–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dell'Acqua R, Jolicoeur P (2000) Visual encoding of patterns is subject to dual-task interference. Mem Cognit 28:184–191

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dell'Acqua R, Stablum F, Galbiati S, Spannocchi G, Cerri C (2001) Selective effect of closed-head injury on central resources allocation: evidence from dual-task performance. Exp Brain Res 136:364–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro FR (1996) Cognitive slowing in closed-head injury. Brain Cogn 32:429–440

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gentilini M, Nichelli P, Schoenhuber R (1989) Assessment of attention in mild head injury. In: Levin HS, Eisemberg HM Benton AL (eds) Mild head injury. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 163–175

  • Gottsdanker R (1980) The ubiquitous role of preparation. In: Stelmach GE, Requin J (eds) Tutorials in motor behavior. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 315–371

  • Gronwall D (1987) Advances in the assessment of attention and information processing after head injury. In: Lenin HS, Grafman J, Eisemberg M (eds) Neurobehavioral recovery from head injury. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 355–371

  • Hartman A, Pickering RM, Wilson BA (1992) Is there a central executive deficit after severe head injury? Clin Rehabil 6:133–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennett B, Bond M (1975) Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet 1:480–484

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur P, Dell'Acqua R (1998) The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognit Psychol 36:138–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur P, Dell'Acqua R, Crebolder J (2000) Multitasking performance deficits: forging some links between the attentional blink and the psychological refractory period. In: Monsell S, Driver J (eds) Attention Performance XVIII. MIT Press, Cambridge pp 309–330

  • Keele SW (1973) Attention and human performance. Goodyear, Pacific Palisades, California

  • Koch R (1995) Hick's law and the psychological refractory period. Paper presented at the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam

  • Levin HS, Grossman RG (1979) The Galveston orientation and amnesia test. A practical scale to assess cognition after head injury. J Nerv Ment Dis 167:675–84

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levy J, Pashler H (2001) Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:862–869

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann RS, Johnston JC (1992) Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:471–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell S, Whyte J, D'Esposito M (1997) Working memory impairments in traumatic brain injury: evidence from a dual-task paradigm. Neuropsychologia 35:1341–1353

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer DE, Kieras DE (1997) A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and human multiple-task performance. 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychol Rev 104:749–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller E (1970) Simple and choice reaction time following severe head injury. Cortex 6:121–127

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell S (1996) Control of mental processes. In: Bruce V Unresolved mysteries of the mind: tutorial essays in cognition. Erlbaum/Taylor Francis, Hove, pp 93–148

  • Park NW, Moscovitch M, Robertson IH (1999) Divided attention impairments after traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia 37:1119–1133

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler H (1994) Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychol Bull 116:220–244

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler H (1998) The psychology of attention. MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Pashler H, Johnston JC (1989) Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Q J Exp Psychol A 41:19–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponsford J, Kinsella G (1991) The use of a rating scale of attentional behavior. Neuropsychol Rehabil 1:241–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponsford J, Kinsella G (1992) Attentional deficits following closed head injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 14:822–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Riese H, Hoedemaeker M, Brouwer WH, Mulder LJM (1999) Mental fatigue after very severe closed head injury: sustained performance, mental effort, and distress at two levels of workload in a driving simulator. Neuropsychol Rehabil 9:189–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson IH, Manly T, Andrade J, Baddeley BT, Yiend J (1997) "Oops!": performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia 35:747–758

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers RD, Monsell S (1995) Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen 124:207–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruthruff E, Pashler HE, Klaassen A (2001) Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement? Psychonom Bull Rev 8:73–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruthruff E, Pashler HE, Hazeltine E (2003) Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: graded capacity sharing or central postponement? Percept Psychophys, in press

  • Schmitter-Edgecombe ME, Marks W, Fahy JF, Long CJ (1992) Effects of severe closed-head injury on three stages of information processing. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 14:717–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert T (1999) Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 25 408–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Shum DHK, McFarland K, Bain JD, Humphreys MS (1990) Effects of closed-head injury on attentional processes: an information-processing stage analysis. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 12:247–264

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spikman JM, Van Zomeren AH, Deelman BG (1996) Deficits of attention after closed-head injury: slowness only? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 18:755–767

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinnler H, Tognoni G (1987) Standardizzazione e taratura italiana di test neuropsicologici (Standardization for Italian of neuropsychological tests). J Neurol Sci (Suppl 8)

  • Stablum F, Leonardi G, Mazzoldi M, Umiltà C, Morra S (1994) Attention and control deficits following closed head injury. Cortex 30:603–618

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stablum F, Mogentale C, Umiltà C (1996) Executive functioning following mild closed head injury. Cortex 32:261–278

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stablum F, Umiltà CA, Mogentale C, Carlan M, Guerrini C (2000) Rehabilitation of executive deficits in closed head injury and anterior communicating artery aneurysm patients. Psychol Res 63:265–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà C, Stablum F (1998) Control processes explored by the study of closed head injury patients. In: Mazzoni G, Nelson TO (eds) Monitoring and control processes in metacognition and cognitive neuropsychology. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 37–52

  • Van der Linden M, Coyette F, Seron X (1992) Selective impairment of the central executive component of working memory: a single case study. Cognit Neuropsychol 9:301–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Selst M, Johnston JC (1997) Dual-task interference when a response is not required. In: Shafto MG, Langley P (eds) Proc 19th Ann Conf Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 787–792

  • Van Selst M, Jolicoeur P (1994) A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Q J Exp Psychol A 47:631–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Selst M, Jolicoeur P (1997) Decision and response in dual-task interference. Cognit Psychol 33:266–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Selst M, Ruthruff E, Johnston JC (1999) Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1268–1283

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zomeren AH, Brower WH (1987) Head injury and concept of attention. In: Levin HS, Grafman J, Eisemberg HM (eds) Neurobehavioral recovery from head injury. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 398–415

  • Van Zomeren AH, Brouwer WH, Deelman BG (1984) Attentional deficits: the riddles of selectivity, speed, and alertness. In: Brooks N (ed) Closed head injury: psychological, social, and family consequences. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 74–107

  • Veltman JC, Brouwer WH, Van Zomeren AH, Van Wolffelaar PC (1996) Central executive aspects of attention in subacute severe and very severe closed head injury patients: planning, inhibition, flexibility, and divided attention. Neuropsychology 10:357–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilkki J, Virtanen S, Surma-Aho O, Servo A (1996) Dual task performance after focal cerebral lesions and closed head injuries. Neuropsychologia 34:1051–1056

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welford AT (1952) The "psychological refractory period" and the timing of high-speed performance—a review and a theory. Brit J Psychol 43:2–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford AT (1959) Evidence of a single-channel decision mechanism limiting performance in a serial reaction task. Q J Exp Psychol 11:193–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong KFE (2002) The relationship between attentional blink and psychological refractory period. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28:54–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the Italian Ministry of Scientific Research (FIRB RBAU01LE9P) and the University of Ferrara to the first author, and from the US National Institute of Mental Health to the second author (NIMH RO1-MH45584). The authors are indebted to Susanna Galbiati for her valuable help in collecting the present data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Sciences and Center for Neuroscience, University of Ferrara, via Savonarola 38, 44100, Ferrara, Italy

    Roberto Dell'Acqua

  2. Department of Psychology, University of California, USA

    Harold Pashler

  3. Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Italy

    Franca Stablum

Authors
  1. Roberto Dell'Acqua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harold Pashler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Franca Stablum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Dell'Acqua.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dell'Acqua, R., Pashler, H. & Stablum, F. Multitasking costs in close-head injury patients. Exp Brain Res 152, 29–41 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1512-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1512-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation