Virtual Reality

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 61–70 | Cite as

An experimental paradigm for the assessment of realistic human multitasking

  • Otmar BockEmail author
  • Uwe Drescher
  • Christin Janouch
  • Mathias Haeger
  • Wim van Winsum
  • Claudia Voelcker-Rehage
Original Article


Human multitasking has been evaluated with paradigms that administered two—rarely three—concurrent tasks. In everyday life, however, we usually face an ever-changing sequence of distinct concurrent tasks. Available studies therefore provided valuable insights into our ability for dual tasking, but they did not address the natural interplay of dual tasking and task switching. The present study was undertaken to explore the feasibility of two new paradigms which replicate that interplay in virtual reality. We used car driving simulator software to implement a virtual car-driving task as well as a virtual street-crossing task. Either task was administered alone, as well as concurrently with a battery of loading tasks that mimicked activities of everyday life. The loading tasks used different sensory modalities, different cognitive processes, and different output channels and were presented in an ever-changing sequence. Cronbach’s alpha scores of key registered variables were high, which indicates that our approach is reliable. Driving and street-crossing performance deteriorated under multitask conditions, which indicates that our approach is sensitive to multitasking. This is the first study to demonstrate the feasibility of an experimental paradigm for the assessment of natural multitasking, i.e., of combined dual tasking and task switching. This paradigm could be of interest for basic science as well as for prevention and rehabilitation settings.


Human cognition Multitasking costs Ecological validity Car driving Street crossing 



This research was supported by Grants within the Priority Program SPP 1772 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), Grants BO 649/22-1 and VO 1432/19-1. One of the authors (WvW) owns the Carnetsoft® company, which sells the driving simulator used in our study. Neither the person nor the company provided financial support for our work. We undertook every effort to avoid any reporting bias and any advertorial content.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standard

This study was pre-approved by the Ethics Commission of the German Sport University. We adhered to the Standards laid down by the Helsinki Declaration.

Informed consent

All participants signed an informed consent statement before being tested.


  1. Banducci SE, Ward N, Gaspar JG, Schab KR, Crowell JA, Kaczmarski H, Kramer AF (2016) The effects of cell phone and text message conversations on simulated street crossing. Hum Factors 58(1):150–162Google Scholar
  2. Bland JM, Altman DG (1997) Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314(7080):572Google Scholar
  3. Bock O, Beurskens R (2010) Changes of locomotion in old age depend on task setting. Gait & Posture 32:645–649Google Scholar
  4. Bock O, Züll A (2013) Characteristics of grasping movements in a laboratory and in an everyday-like context. Hum Mov Sci 32(1):249–256Google Scholar
  5. Burgess PW (2000) Real-world multitasking from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. In: Control of cognitive processes: attention and performance, vol 18, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 465–472Google Scholar
  6. Burgess PW, Veitch E, de Lacy Costello A, Shallice T (2000) The cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates of multitasking. Neuropsychologia 38(6):848–863Google Scholar
  7. Byington KW, Schwebel DC (2013) Effects of mobile Internet use on college student pedestrian injury risk. Accid Anal Prev 51:78–83Google Scholar
  8. Cassavaugh ND, Kramer AF (2009) Transfer of computer-based training to simulated driving in older adults. Appl Ergon 40(5):943–952Google Scholar
  9. Chaddock L, Neider MB, Lutz A, Hillman CH, Kramer AF (2012) Role of childhood aerobic fitness in successful street crossing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 44(4):749–753Google Scholar
  10. Chaytor N, Schmitter-Edgecombe M (2003) The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: a review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychol Rev 13:181–197Google Scholar
  11. Drews FA, Yazdani H, Godfrey CN, Cooper JM, Strayer DL (2009) Text messaging during simulated driving. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 51:762–770Google Scholar
  12. Dux PE, Tombu MN, Harrison S, Rogers BP, Tong F, Marois R (2009) Training improves multitasking performance by increasing the speed of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron 63(1):127–138Google Scholar
  13. Ewolds HE, Broeker L, de Oliveira RF, Raab M, Künzell S (2017) Implicit and explicit knowledge both improve dual task performance in a continuous pursuit tracking task. Front Psychol 8:2241Google Scholar
  14. Feng J, Im Craik F, Levine B, Moreno S, Naglie G, Choi H (2017) Differential age-related changes in localizing a target among distractors across an extended visual field. Eur J Ageing 14(2):167–177Google Scholar
  15. Hazeltine E, Teague D, Ivry RB (2002) Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28(3):527Google Scholar
  16. Helm WR (1981) Psychometric measures of task difficulty under varying levels of information load. Proc Hum Factors Soc Annu Meet 25(1):518–521Google Scholar
  17. Hick WE (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Q J Exp Psychol 4:11–26Google Scholar
  18. Horry WJ, Wickens CD (2006) Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Hum Factors 48(1):196–205Google Scholar
  19. Jersild AT (1927) Mental set and shift. Arch Psychol 14:5–82Google Scholar
  20. Kahnemann D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  21. Kleinsorge T (2001) The time course of effort mobilization and strategic adjustments of response criteria. Psychol Res 65:216–223Google Scholar
  22. Koch I (2005) Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychon Bull Rev 12(1):107–112Google Scholar
  23. Kray J, Lindenberger U (2000) Adult age differences in task switching. Psychol Aging 15:126–147Google Scholar
  24. Laloyaux J, van der Linden M, Levaux M-N, Mourad H, Pirri A, Bertrand H, Larøi F (2014) Multitasking capacities in persons diagnosed with schizophrenia: a preliminary examination of their neurocognitive underpinnings and ability to predict real world functioning. Psychiatry Res 217(3):163–170Google Scholar
  25. Liepelt R, Strobach T, Frensch P, Schubert T (2011) Improved intertask coordination after extensive dual-task practice. Q J Exp Psychol 64(7):1251–1272Google Scholar
  26. Manor B, Zhou J, Jor’dan A, Zhang J, Fang J, Pascual-Leone A (2016) Reduction of dual-task costs by noninvasive modulation of prefrontal activity in healthy elders. J Cogn Neurosci 28(2):275–281Google Scholar
  27. Mayer RE (1976) Integration of information during problem solving due to a meaningful context of learning. Mem Cognit 4(5):603–608Google Scholar
  28. Mayr U, Keele SW (2000) Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition. J Exp Psychol Gen 129(1):4Google Scholar
  29. McDowd JM (1986) The effects of age and extended practice on divided attention performance. J Gerontol 41:764–769Google Scholar
  30. Minear M, Shah P (2008) Training and transfer effects in task switching. Mem Cognit 36(8):1470–1483Google Scholar
  31. Monsell S, Sumner P, Waters H (2003) Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Mem Cognit 31(3):327–342Google Scholar
  32. Neider MB, Gaspar JG, McCarley JS, Crowell JA, Kaczmarski H, Kramer AF (2011) Walking and talking: dual-task effects on street crossing behavior in older adults. Psychol Aging 26:260–268Google Scholar
  33. Norman DA, Shallice T (1986) Attention to action. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Proctor RW, Schneider DW (2017) Hick’s law for choice reaction time: a review. Q J Exp Psychol 2006:1–56Google Scholar
  35. Rogers RD, Monsell S (1995) Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen 124:207–231Google Scholar
  36. Schumacher EH, Seymour TL, Glass JM, Fencsik DE, Lauber EJ, Kieras DE, Meyer DE (2001) Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychol Sci 12(2):101–108Google Scholar
  37. Sekuler R, Bennett PJ, Mamelak M (2000) Effects of aging on the useful field of view. Exp Aging Res 26:103–120Google Scholar
  38. Shea JB, Morgan RL (1979) Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 5:179–187Google Scholar
  39. Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnson WA (2003) Cell phone induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. J Exp Psychol 9:23–32Google Scholar
  40. Strobach T, Liepelt R, Schubert T, Kiesel A (2012) Task switching: effects of practice on switch and mixing costs. Psychol Res 76(1):74–83Google Scholar
  41. Telford CW (1931) The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. J Exp Psychol 14:1–36Google Scholar
  42. Verhaeghen P, Martin M, Sędek G (2012) Reconnecting cognition in the lab and cognition in real life: The role of compensatory social and motivational factors in explaining how cognition ages in the wild. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 19(1–2):1–12Google Scholar
  43. Verhaeghen P, Steitz DW, Sliwinski MJ, Cerella J (2003) Aging and dual-task performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging 18:443–460Google Scholar
  44. Welford AT (1952) The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance—a review and a theory. Br J Psychol 43(1):2–19Google Scholar
  45. Wickens CD (1991) Processing resources and attention. In: Damos DL (ed) Multiple task performance. Taylor & Francis Ltd, London, pp 3–34Google Scholar
  46. Wollesen B, Voelcker-Rehage C (2014) Training effects on motor–cognitive dual-task performance in older adults. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act 11(1):5–24Google Scholar
  47. Zinke K, Einert M, Pfennig L, Kliegel M (2012) Plasticity of executive control through task switching training in adolescents. Front Hum Neurosci 6:41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Sport UniversityCologneGermany
  2. 2.Technical University ChemnitzChemnitzGermany
  3. 3.Carnetsoft B.VGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations