Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Closed head injury and perceptual processing in dual-task situations

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using a classical psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm we investigated whether increased interference between dual-task input processes is one possible source of dual-task deficits in patients with closed-head injury (CHI). Patients and age-matched controls were asked to give speeded motor reactions to an auditory and a visual stimulus. The perceptual difficulty of the visual stimulus was manipulated by varying its intensity. The results of Experiment 1 showed that CHI patients suffer from increased interference between dual-task input processes, which is related to the salience of the visual stimulus. A second experiment indicated that this input interference may be specific to brain damage following CHI. It is not evident in other groups of neurological patients like Parkinson’s disease patients. We conclude that the non-interfering processing of input stages in dual-tasks requires cognitive control. A decline in the control of input processes should be considered as one source of dual-task deficits in CHI patients.

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 A
Fig. 2A,B
Fig. 3A,B
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnell K, Jolicoeur P (1999) The attentional blink across stimulus modalities: evidence for central processing limitations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:630–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azouvi P, Jokic C, Van Der Linden M, Marlier N, Bussel B (1996) Working memory and supervisory control after severe closed-head injury. A study of dual task performance and random generation. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 18:317–337

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benecke R, Rothwell JC, Dick JPR, Day BL, Marsden CD (1986) Performance of simultaneous movements in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Brain 109:739–757

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brass M, Derrfuss J, Matthes-von Cramon G, von Cramon DY (2003) Imitative response tendencies in patients with frontal lesions. Neuropsychology 17:265–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown RG, Marsden CD (1990) Cognitive function in Parkinson’s disease: from description to theory. Trends Neurosci 13:21–29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple-Alford JC, Kalders AS, Jones RD, Watson RW (1994) A central executive deficit in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 57:360–367

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong R (1993) Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:965–980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Acqua R, Stablum F, Galbiati S, Spannocchi G, Cerri C (2001) Selective effect of closed-head injury on central resource allocation: evidence from dual-task performance. Exp Brain Res 136:364–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Acqua R, Pashler H, Stablum, F (2003a) Multi-tasking costs in CHI-patients: a fine-grained analysis. Exp Brain Res 152:29–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Acqua R, Jolicoeur P, Pesciarelli F, Job R, Palomba D (2003b) Electrophysiological evidence of visual encoding deficits in a cross-modal attentional blink paradigm. Psychophysiology 40:629–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donk M, Theeuwes J (2001) Visual marking beside the mark: prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets. Percept Psychophys 63:891–900

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fahn S, Elton RL [members of the UPDRS Development Committee] (1987) The unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale (UPDRS). In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Calne DB, Goldstein M (eds) Recent developments in Parkinson’s disease, vol 2. Macmillan, Florham Park NJ, pp 293–304

  • Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-Mental-State”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fournet N, Moreaud O, Roulin JL, Naegele B, Pellat J (1996) Working memory in medicated patients with Parkinson’s disease: the central executive seems to work. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 60:313–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellatly A, Cole G, Blurton A (1999) Do equiluminant object onsets capture visual attention? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1609–1624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hein G, Schubert T (2004) Aging and input processing in dual-task situations. Psychol Aging (in press)

  • Hoehn MM, Yahr MD (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression, and mortality. Neurology 17:427–442

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horstink MW, Berger HJ, Van Spaendonck KP, Van-den-Bercken JH, Cools AR (1990) Bimanual simultaneous motor performance and impaired ability to shift attention in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 53:685–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh S (2000) The psychological refractory period in Parkinson’s disease. Percept Mot Skills 91:893–902

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jahanshahi M, Dirnberger G, Fuller R, Frith, CD (2000) The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in random number generation: a study with positron emission tomography. Neuroimage 12:713–725

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur P (1999) Restricted attentional capacity between sensory modalities. Psychon Bull Rev 6:87–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaipio ML, Alho K, Winkler I, Escera C, Surma-aho O, Näätänen R (1999) Event-related brain potentials reveal covert distractibility in closed head injury. Neuroreport 10:2125–2129

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaipio ML, Cheour M, Ceponiene R, Öhman J, Alku P, Näätänen R (2000) Increased distractibility in closed head injury as revealed by event-related potentials. Neuroreport 11:1463–1468

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim MS, Cave KR (1999) Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: on the nature of interference from a salient distractor. Percept Psychophys 61:1009–1023

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knight RT, Staines WR, Swick D, Chao LL (1999) Prefrontal cortex regulates inhibition and excitation in distributed neural networks. Acta Psychol 101:156–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Konishi S, Nakajima K, Uchida I, Kikyo H, Kameyama M, Miyashita Y (1999) Common inhibitory mechanism in human inferior prefrontal cortex revealed by event-related functional MRI. Brain 122:981–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leclercq M, Couillet J, Azouvi P, Marlier N, Martin Y, Strypstein E, Rousseaux M (2000) Dual task performance after severe diffuse traumatic brain injury or vascular prefrontal damage. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 22: 339–350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis SJG, Cools R, Robbins TW, Dove A, Barker RA, Owen AM (2003) Using executive heterogeneity to explore the nature of working memory deficits in Parkinson’s Disease. Neuropsychologia 41:645–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luck SJ (1998) Sources of dual-task interference: evidence from human electrophysiology. Psychol Sci 9:223–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malapani C, Pillon B, Dubois B, Agid Y (1994) Impaired simultaneous cognitive task performance in Parkinson’s disease: a dopamine-related dysfunction. Neurology 44:319–326

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann RS, Johnston JC (1992) Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual task interference. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform18:471–484

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell S, Whyte J, D’Esposito M (1997) Working memory impairments in traumatic brain injury: evidence from a dual-task paradigm. Neuropsychologia 35:1341–1353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer DE, Kieras DE (1997) A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance. Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychol Rev 104:3–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller J (1989) The control of attention by abrupt visual onsets and offsets. Percept Psychophys 45:567–571

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Park NW, Moscovitch M, Robertson IH (1999) Divided attention impairment after traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia 37:1119–1133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler H (1994) Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychol Bull 116:220–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler H, Johnston JC (1989) Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Q J Exp Psychol 41A:19–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollux PM, Robertson C (2002) Reduced task-set inertia in Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 24:1046–1056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Polo MD, Newton P, Rogers D, Escera C, Butler S (2002) ERPs and behavioral indices of long-term preattentive and attentive deficits after closed head injury. Neuropsychologia 40:2350–2359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson JTE (2000) Clinical and neuropsychological aspects of closed head injury. Psychology Press, Philadelphia

  • Robertson C, Hazlewood R, Rawson MD (1996) The effects of Parkinson’s disease on the capacity to generate information randomly. Neuropsychologia 34:1069–1078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saint-Cyr J, Hoque T, Pereira LC, Dostrovsky JO et al. (2002) Localization of clinically effective electrodes in the human subthalamic nucleus on magentic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 97:1152–1166

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert T (1999) Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert T, Szameitat AJ (2003) Functional neuroanatomy of interference in overlapping dual tasks: an fMRI study. Cogn Brain Res 17:733–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweickert R (1983) Latent network theory: Scheduling of processes in sentence verification and the Stroop effect. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 9:353–379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Solbakk AK, Reinvang I, Nielsen C, Sundet K (1999) ERP indicators of disturbed attention in mild closed head injury: a frontal lobe syndrome? Psychophysiology 36:802–817

    Google Scholar 

  • Stablum F, Leonardi G, Mazzoldi M, Umiltà C, Morra S (1994) Attention and control deficits following closed head injury. Cortex 30:603–618

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szameitat AJ, Schubert T, Mueller K, von Cramon DY (2002) Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI. J Cogn Neurosci 14:1184–1199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Theeuwes J (1991) Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: the effect of visual onsets and offsets. Percept Psychophys 49:83–90

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Theewes J (1994) Endogenous and exogenous control of visual selection. Perception 23:429–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Werheid K, Hoppe C, Thoene A, Mueller U, Muengersdorf M, von Cramon DY (2002) The Adaptive Digit Ordering Test. Clinical application, reliability, and validity of a verbal working memory test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 17:547–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte J, Schuster K, Polansky M, Adams J, Coslett HB (2000) Frequency and duration of inattentive behavior after traumatic brain injury: effects of distraction, task, and practice. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 6:1–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wrightson P, Gronwall D (1999) Mild head injury. A guide to management. Oxford University Press, New York

  • Yantis S (1993) Stimulus-driven attentional capture and attentional control settings. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:676–681

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yantis S, Johnson DN (1990) Mechanisms of attentional priority. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 16:812–825

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMB+F), Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research (IZKF) at the University of Leipzig (01KS9504, project C09). Many thanks go to Katja Werheid for help in recruiting and testing of the PD patients. We also thank Mike Reuter, Martina Muengersdorf, Antje Mueller and Michael Joebges for the neurological assessment of the PD group. Further, we thank Corinna Kossack for help in recruiting the CHI patients and Franziska Korb and Tina Jentzsch for help in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 2EF, UK

    G. Hein

  2. Department of Psychology, Humboldt-University Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 18, 12489, Berlin, Germany

    T. Schubert

  3. Day Clinic of Cognitive Neurology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 22a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    D. Y. von Cramon

Authors
  1. G. Hein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Y. von Cramon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Hein.

Additional information

The reported experiments are part of the doctoral dissertation by Grit Hein, which was conducted at the Department of Cognitive Neurology, University of Leipzig, and supervised by T.S.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hein, G., Schubert, T. & von Cramon, D.Y. Closed head injury and perceptual processing in dual-task situations. Exp Brain Res 160, 223–234 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-2006-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-2006-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation