Abstract

Previous studies on voluntary task switching using the self-organized task switching paradigm suggest that task performance and task selection in multitasking are related. When deciding between two tasks, the stimulus associated with a task repetition occurred with a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) that continuously increased with the number of repetitions, while the stimulus associated with a task switch was immediately available. Thus, the waiting time for the repetition stimulus increased with number of consecutive task repetitions. Two main results were shown: first, switch costs and voluntary switch rates correlated negatively – the smaller the switch costs, the larger the switch rates. Second, participants switched tasks when switch costs and waiting time for the repetition stimulus were similar. In the present study, we varied the SOA that increased with number of task repetitions (SOA increment) and also varied the size of the switch costs by varying the intertrial interval. We examined which combination of SOA increment and switch costs maximizes participants’ attempts to balance waiting time and switch costs in self-organized task switching. We found that small SOA increments allow for fine-grained adaptation and that participants can best balance their switch costs and waiting times in settings with medium switch costs and small SOA increments. In addition, correlational analyses indicate relations between individual switch costs and individual switch rates across participants.

Highlights

  • In our daily life we often engage in multitasking

  • Previous self-organized task switching studies demonstrated that voluntary task selection is sensitive to both switch costs and the waiting time until a stimulus is presented in repetition trials (Mittelstädt, et al, 2018b, 2019)

  • Waiting time for a repetition stimulus ­corresponded to their switch costs supported the idea of strategic task selection that takes into account different costs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In our daily life we often engage in multitasking. Yet, our ability to multitask is rather limited. A rich research tradition on decision making provides evidence that people consider different costs and benefits for their decisions (i.e., Basten et al, 2010; Kool et al, 2010; Simen et al, 2009) and recent theoretical work suggests that such utility-based decisions take into account performance costs in multitasking (Shenhav et al, 2013, Musslick et al, 2015; Shenhav et al, 2016; see Schuch, et al, 2019) Against this background, the present study examined the structure of such cost/. Participants repeated tasks more often than expected by chance (about 35% switch rate) violating the instruction to select tasks randomly (e.g., Arrington & Logan, 2005; Yeung, 2010)

Objectives
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