Introspection about backward crosstalk in dual-task performance

Daniel Bratzke,Markus Janczyk

doi:10.1007/s00426-019-01282-3

Daniel Bratzke, Markus Janczyk

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01282-3

Copy DOI

Abstract

The present study investigated participants’ ability to introspect about the effect of between-task crosstalk in dual tasks. In two experiments, participants performed a compatibility-based backward crosstalk dual task, and additionally provided estimates of their RTs (introspective reaction times, IRTs) after each trial (Experiment 1) or after each pair of prime and test trials (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the objective performance showed the typical backward crosstalk effect and its sequential modulation depending on compatibility in the previous trial. Very similar patterns were observed in IRTs, despite the typical unawareness of the PRP effect. In sum, these results demonstrate the reliability of between-task crosstalk in dual tasks and that people’s introspection about the temporal processing demands in this complex dual-task situation is intriguingly accurate and severely limited at the same time.

Highlights

A long tradition of dual-task research has shown that multitasking usually comes at a cost
The results showed the standard responses in Task 1 (R1)–responses in Task 2 (R2) backward crosstalk effect (BCE) and its sequential modulation depending on compatibility in Trial n−1
One might argue that the introspective sensitivity was still lower for the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect than for the compatibility effects, as the introspective PRP effect amounted to 31% of the objective effect whereas the introspective compatibility effects amounted to 67% (Task 1) and 40% (Task 2) of the objective effects

Summary

Participants

The letter appeared first in gray color and changed its color to red or green (the Task 2 stimulus; S2) after an SOA. Participants were instructed to give a manual R1 to the letter identity (S1) and a pedal R2 to the letter color (S2). After both responses were given, they were further asked to provide judgments of their RTs in both tasks using a visual analogue scale. Participants were explicitly instructed (written and oral instruction) to judge the intervals between the onset of the letter and their manual response (RT1) and between the onset of the color change and their pedal response (RT2).

Design and analyses

Results

Discussion