Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2012 | Original Article

Investigation on the improvement and transfer of dual-task coordination skills

Auteurs: Tilo Strobach, Peter A. Frensch, Alexander Soutschek, Torsten Schubert

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2012

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that dual-task performance in situations with two simultaneously presented tasks can be substantially improved with extensive practice. This improvement was related to the acquisition of task coordination skills. Earlier studies provided evidence that these skills result from hybrid practice, including dual and single tasks, but not from single-task practice. It is an open question, however, whether task coordination skills are independent from the specific practice situation and are transferable to new situations or whether they are non-transferable and task-specific. The present study, therefore, tested skill transfer in (1) a dual-task situation with identical tasks in practice and transfer, (2) a dual-task situation with two tasks changed from practice to transfer, and (3) a task switching situation with two sequentially presented tasks. Our findings are largely consistent with the assumption that task coordination skills are non-transferable and task-specific. We cannot, however, definitively reject the assumption of transferable skills when measuring error rates in the dual-task situation with two changed tasks after practice. In the task switching situation, single-task and hybrid practice both led to a transfer effect on mixing costs.

vorige artikel Erratum to: Correlations between spatial compatibility effects: are arrows more like locations or words?

volgende artikel Context-dependent motor skill and the role of practice

In fact, dual-task RT costs in practice Session 8 of the study of Tombu and Jolicoeur (2004); visual task: 26 ms; auditory task: 40 ms) were very similar to the present costs (visual task: 27 ms; auditory task: 41 ms). These findings show possible boundary conditions to obtain perfect dual-task performance in this paradigm. The finding of residual dual-task costs in the present study might be due to the use of separate deadlines for dual-task and single-task conditions taken as the basis of the financial payoff matrix. This procedure might maintain strong motivation for both single-task trials and dual-task trials until the end of practice (Tombu & Jolicoeur, 2004). In contrast, Schumacher et al. (2001) exclusively used the performance deadline of the single-task trials presented during the mixed blocks to award financial payoff in both single-task and dual-task trials during practice (see also Hazeltine et al., 2002). The Schumacher procedure might increase effects of mobilized effort in dual-task trials as compared to single-task trials. As a result of this, one should find a greater reduction of RTs in dual tasks than in single tasks during practice. This difference in deadline procedures between studies might explain the finding of non-significant dual-task costs in the study of Schumacher and colleagues in contrast to the small residual dual-task costs we found at the end of practice.

Across both the hybrid and the single-task transfer groups, the reason for the increase in visual and auditory dual-task RT costs from pre- to post-test may be related to the particular way in which we changed the stimulus and the mapping information in both tasks during transfer. In fact, the change from a position mapping to a size mapping in the visual task and from a compatible to an incompatible mapping in the auditory task resulted in a reduced degree of compatibility between tasks’ stimuli and responses (Kornblum, Hasbroucq, & Osman, 1990) that may impose increased cognitive demands on operations of task coordination (Ruthruff et al., 2006). This increase may result in additional performance costs mainly in dual-task situations and therefore may explain the observation of increased dual-task RT costs.

Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Conscious and nonconscious information processing: attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.

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, 593–623.CrossRef

Beringer, J. (2000). Experimental runtime system. BeriSoft Cooperation, Frankfurtam Main (1987–2000).

Bherer, L., Kramer, A. F., Peterson, M. S., Colcombe, S., Erickson, K., & Becic, E. (2005). Training effects on dual-task performance: are there age-related differences in plasticity of attentional control? Psychology and Aging, 20(4), 695–709.CrossRefPubMed

Bherer, L., Kramer, A. F., Peterson, M. S., Colcombe, S., Erickson, K., & Becic, E. (2008). Transfer effects in task-set cost and dual-task cost after dual-task training in older and younger adults: further evidence for cognitive plasticity in attentional control in late adulthood. Experimental Aging Research, 34, 188–209.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Castel, A. D., Pratt, J., & Drummond, E. (2005). The effects of action video game experience on the time course of inhibition of return and the efficiency of visual search. Acta Psychologica, 119, 217–230.CrossRefPubMed

Damos, D. L., & Wickens, C. D. (1980). The identification and transfer of timesharing skills. Acta Psychologica, 46(1), 15–39.CrossRef

Dux, P. E., Tombu, M. N., Harrison, S., Rogers, B. P., Tong, F., & Marois, R. (2009). Training improves multitasking performance by increasing the speed of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63(1), 127–138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 527–545.PubMed

Healy, A. F., Wohldmann, E. L., Sutton, E. M., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (2006). Specificity effects in training and transfer of speeded responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 534–546.PubMed

Hirst, W., Spelke, E. S., Reaves, C. C., Caharack, G., & Neisser, U. (1980). Dividing attention without alteration or automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 98–117.CrossRef

Johnston, J. C., & Delgado, D. F. (1993). Bypassing the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task performance. Paper presented to the 34th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington DC.

Kamienkowski, J. E., Pashler, H., Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2011). Effects of practice on task architecture: Combined evidence from interference experiments and random-walk models of decision making. Cognition, 119, 81–95.CrossRefPubMed

Kantowitz, B. H. (1978). Response conflict theory, error rates and hybrid processing: a reply to McLeod. Acta Psychologica, 42(5), 397–403.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Phillip, A., et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.CrossRefPubMed

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270.CrossRefPubMed

Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. F., & Strayer, D. L. (1995). Training for attentional control in dual task settings: a comparison of young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(10), 50–76.

Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. L., Weber, T. A., & Bardell, L. (1999). Training for executive control: task coordination strategies and aging. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 617–652). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Kray, J., & Lindenberger, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task switching. Psychology and Aging, 15, 126–147.CrossRefPubMed

Lien, M.-C., Proctor, R. W., & Allen, P. A. (2002). Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 396–409.PubMed

Lien, M.-C., Schweickert, R., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 692–712.PubMed

Liepelt, R., Strobach, T., Frensch, P., & Schubert, T. (2011). Improved inter-task coordination skills after extensive dual-task practice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(7), 1251–1272.CrossRef

Maquestiaux, F., Hartley, A. A., & Bertsch, J. (2004). Can practice overcome age-related differences in the psychological refractory period effect? Psychology and Aging, 19, 649–667.CrossRefPubMed

Maquestiaux, F., Laguẽ-Beauvais, M., Ruthruff, E., & Bherer, L. (2008). Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory and Cognition, 36(7), 1262–1282.CrossRefPubMed

Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: the role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging, 16, 96–109.CrossRefPubMed

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.CrossRefPubMed

Nino, R. S., & Rickard, T. C. (2003). Practice effects on two memory retrievals from a single cue. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 373–388.CrossRefPubMed

Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2004). Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 689–707.PubMed

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.CrossRefPubMed

Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: I. Locus of practice effects in speeded choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 20–32.CrossRef

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.CrossRef

Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. V. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3–21.PubMed

Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M. V., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 280–289.PubMed

Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. W. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: integration, automatization, or simply stage-shortening? Psychological Research, 70, 125–142.CrossRefPubMed

Sangals, J., Wilwer, M., & Sommer, W. (2007). Localising practice effects in dual-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 860–876.CrossRef

Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reaction affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 408–425.

Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101–108.CrossRefPubMed

Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic information processing. II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRef

Shin, Y.-K., Cho, Y.-S., Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2007). Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-emphasis instructions? Psychological Research, 71, 553–567.CrossRefPubMed

Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: dual-task and task uncertainty. PLOS: Biology, 4, e220.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Spelke, E. S., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4, 215–230.CrossRef

Strobach, T., Frensch, P. A., & Schubert, T. (2008). The temporal stability of skilled dual-task performance. In: Zimmer, H. D., Frings, C., Mecklinger, A., Opitz, B., Pospeschill, M. & Wentura, D. (Eds.), Cognitive Science 2007. Saarbrücken: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society of Germany.

Strobach, T., Liepelt, R., Schubert, T., & Kiesel, A. (in press). Task switching: effects of practice on switch and mixing costs. Psychological Research.

Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1–36.CrossRef

Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 795–810.PubMed

Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268–1283.PubMed

Welford, A. T. (1952). The psychological refractory period and the timing of high speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–19.

Titel: Investigation on the improvement and transfer of dual-task coordination skills
Auteurs: Tilo Strobach
Peter A. Frensch
Alexander Soutschek
Torsten Schubert
Publicatiedatum: 01-11-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0381-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2012

Effects of pointing on the recall of simultaneous and sequential visuospatial arrays: a role for retrieval strategies?

Action mirroring and action understanding: an ideomotor and attentional account

Representation of grasp postures and anticipatory motor planning in children

Anxiety and perceptual-motor performance: toward an integrated model of concepts, mechanisms, and processes

Erratum to: Correlations between spatial compatibility effects: are arrows more like locations or words?

Phonotactic probability of brand names: I’d buy that!