Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dual-task interference: Bottleneck constraint or capacity sharing? Evidence from automatic and controlled processes

  • Published:
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated whether the interference between two tasks in dual-task processing stems from bottleneck limitations or insufficient cognitive resources due to resource sharing. Experiment 1 used tone discrimination as Task 1 and word or pseudoword classification as Task 2 to evaluate the effect of automatic versus controlled processing on dual-task interference under different SOA conditions. Experiment 2 reversed the task order. The results showed that dual-task interference persisted regardless of task type or order. Neither experiment found evidence that automatic tasks could eliminate interference. This suggests that resource limitations, rather than bottlenecks, may better explain dual-task costs. Specifically, when tasks compete for limited resources, the processing efficiency of both tasks is significantly reduced. Future research should explore how cognitive resources are dynamically allocated between tasks to better account for dual-task interference effects.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data and materials for this study reported here are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Chen, T. M., & Chen, J. Y. (2013). The syllable as the proximate unit in Mandarin Chinese word production: An intrinsic or accidental property of the production system? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(1), 154–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, J., Li, X., & Liversedge, S. P. (2015). Character order processing in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 127–137.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, P., Declerck, M., & Koch, I. (2015). Exploring the functional locus of language switching: Evidence from a PRP paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 161, 1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M. A., Pieczykolan, A., Koch, I., & Huestegge, L. (2020). Two sources of task prioritization: The interplay of effector-based and task order-based capacity allocation in the PRP paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(7), 3402–3414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response-from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132(1), 30–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Katus, T., & Eimer, M. (2019). The sources of dual-task costs in multisensory working memory tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(2), 175–185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, M. (2012). Executive control over unconscious cognition: Attentional sensitization of unconscious information processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(1), 61–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, M., & Martens, U. (2010). Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: Task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 464–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klapp, S. T., Maslovat, D., & Jagacinski, R. J. (2019). The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 557–583.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lehle, C., Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Serial or parallel processing in dual tasks: What is more effortful? Psychophysiology, 46(3), 502–509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leonhard, T., Fernández, S. R., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2011). Dual-task processing when task 1 is hard and T2 is easy: Reversed central processing order? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 115–136.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J., Pashler, H., & Boer, E. (2006). Central interference in driving: Is there any stopping the psychological refractory period? Psychological Science, 17(3), 228–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lien, M. C., Croswaite, K., & Ruthruff, E. (2011). Controlling spatial attention without central attentional resources: Evidence from event-related potentials. Visual Cognition, 19(1), 37–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longtin, C. M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 26–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maquestiaux, F., Ruthruff, E., Defer, A., & Ibrahime, S. (2018). Dual-task automatization: The key role of sensory-motor modality compatibility. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 80(3), 752–772.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15(2), 197–237.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research, 70(6), 484–493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Durst, M. (2015). A comparison of the psychological refractory period and prioritized processing paradigms: Can the response-selection bottleneck model explain them both? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(5), 1420–1441.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 273–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstädt, V., & Miller, J. (2017). Separating limits on preparation versus online processing in multitasking paradigms: Evidence for resource models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), 89–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstädt, V., Mackenzie, I. G., & Miller, J. (2022). Evidence of resource sharing in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48(11), 1279–1293.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pannebakker, M. M., Jolicœur, P., van Dam, W. O., Band, G. P., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Hommel, B. (2011). Mental rotation impairs attention shifting and short-term memory encoding: Neurophysiological evidence against the response-selection bottleneck model of dual-task performance. Neuropsychologia, 49(11), 2985–2993.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., Harris, C. R., & Nuechterlein, K. H. (2008). Does the central bottleneck encompass voluntary selection of hedonically-based choices? Experimental Psychology, 55(5), 313–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paucke, M., Oppermann, F., Koch, I., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2015). On the costs of parallel processing in dual-task performance: The case of lexical processing in word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(6), 1539–1552.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piai, V., & Roelofs, A. (2013). Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming. Acta Psychologica, 142(3), 332–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prinzmetal, W., Hoffman, H., & Vest, K. (1991). Automatic processes in word perception: An analysis from illusory conjunctions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 17(4), 902–923.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening? Psychological Research, 70(2), 125–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T., & Strobach, T. (2018). Practice-related optimization of dual-task performance: Efficient task instantiation during overlapping task processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1884–1904.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strobach, T., Schütz, A., & Schubert, T. (2015). On the importance of Task 1 and error performance measures in PRP dual-task studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 403.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Strobach, T., Hendrich, E., Kübler, S., Müller, H., & Schubert, T. (2018). Processing order in dual-task situations: The “first-come, first-served” principle and the impact of task order instructions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1785–1803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Töllner, T., Strobach, T., Torsten, S. T., & Müller, H. J. (2012). The effect of task order predictability in audio-visual dual task performance: Just a central capacity limitation? Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 75–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66(4), 274–286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2005). Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 790–802.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57(2), 75–121.

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(2), 254–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, D., & Besner, D. (2018). Attentional constraints on semantic activation: Evidence from Stroop’s paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 189, 4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C., & Liu, Y. (2008). Queuing network modeling of the psychological refractory period (PRP). Psychological Review, 115(4), 913–954.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, L., Desroches, A. S., Liu, Y., Xia, Z., & Shu, H. (2012). Orthographic facilitation in Chinese spoken word recognition: An ERP study. Brain and Language, 123(3), 164–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teacher Education, Tianshui Normal University, Tianshui, China

    Yanwen Wu

  2. School of Teacher Education, Huzhou University, Huzhou, China

    Qiangqiang Wang

Authors
  1. Yanwen Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiangqiang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiangqiang Wang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Visual stimulus materials in Experiments 1 and 2:

figure c

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, Y., Wang, Q. Dual-task interference: Bottleneck constraint or capacity sharing? Evidence from automatic and controlled processes. Atten Percept Psychophys (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02854-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02854-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation