Abstract

Even after a long time of research on dual-tasking, the question whether the two tasks are always processed serially (response selection bottleneck models, RSB) or also in parallel (capacity-sharing models) is still going on. The first models postulate that the central processing stages of two tasks cannot overlap, producing a central processing bottleneck in Task 2. The second class of models posits that cognitive resources are shared between the central processing stages of two tasks, allowing for parallel processing. In a series of three experiments, we aimed at inducing parallel vs. serial processing by manipulating the relative frequency of short vs. long SOAs (Experiments 1 and 2) and including no-go trials in Task 2 (Experiment 3). Beyond the conventional response time (RT) analyses, we employed drift–diffusion model analyses to differentiate between parallel and serial processing. Even though our findings were rather consistent across the three experiments, they neither support unambiguously the assumptions derived from the RSB model nor those derived from capacity-sharing models. SOA frequency might lead to an adaptation to frequent time patterns. Overall, our diffusion model results and mean RTs seem to be better explained by participant’s time expectancies.

Highlights

  • Research in the field of dual-tasking so far showed that performing more than one task concurrently produces costs, even with quite simple tasks (Koch, Poljac, Müller & Kiesel, 2018)

  • The results showed that performance was more prone to task interference under parallel than under serial task processing instructions, even though participants showed a bias towards parallel processing when no specific instruction was presented

  • We modeled the data with a diffusion model approach for further insights in the performance differences between the two experimental conditions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Research in the field of dual-tasking so far showed that performing more than one task concurrently produces costs, even with quite simple tasks (Koch, Poljac, Müller & Kiesel, 2018). These dual-task costs have been extensively investigated within the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm (Telford, 1931). Whereas a manipulation of the SOA has only minor effects on primary task processing, response times (RT) of. Compelling evidence suggests that perfect time-sharing after intensive dual-task training is possible (Allport, Antonis, & Reynolds, 1972; Halvorson, Ebner & Hazeltine, 2013; Halvorson & Hazeltine, 2015; Israel & Cohen, 2011; Schumacher et al, 2001). It has been demonstrated that an incompatibility between the primary and secondary tasks’ responses does prolong the RT

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call