Abstract
The present chapter focuses on a basic science perspective on dual-task performance with simple tasks. We will discuss how the investigation of dual-task performance with simple tasks, when based on a discrete processing-stage assumption, allows for the examination of dual-task costs at the microstructure of task component processing and offers a window into the nature of dual-task costs. The first part of the chapter will start with a brief overview of traditional approaches to studying dual-task performance with an emphasis on experimental approaches that manipulate the degree of temporal task overlap to assess cognitive processing limitations (psychological refractory period approach) as well as two techniques that allow to localize specific cognitive processes in reference to the assumed processing limitation (locus of slack and effect propagation logic). In the second part of the chapter, we will review research on processing interactions between two tasks as a major contribution of limitations in dual-task performance and discuss compatibility-based and no-go-based backward crosstalk as two qualitatively different types of between-task interference pattern. Finally, we highlight the possibility of instruction-based and contextual regulation of cognitive control as the basis for adaptive dual tasking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Note that the proposal of latent bottlenecks as a consequence of extensive practice (Ruthruff et al. 2003) is in line with the RSB model to explain dual-task cost reductions. Similarly, optimized attention allocation between tasks, automatization, and increased information processing speed, as well as improved executive control skills, have been proposed to account for dual-task cost reduction after practice and are also well in line with capacity sharing and control models of dual-task performance (for a recent review, see Strobach and Schubert 2017).
- 3.
The term “central” is an umbrella term that has its roots in the discrete stage logic of information processing and is meant to represent cognitive processing that should be distinguished from more peripheral perceptual and motor processing. Although the majority of studies with PRP experiments, cognitive processing at a “central” stage is not limited to response selection processes, but as aforementioned entails, among others, also various memory processes such as encoding, consolidation, or retrieval.
- 4.
- 5.
The aim of localizing the compatibility-based BCE at either an automatic response activation or a subsequent capacity-limited response selection stage rests on the assumption of distinct and separable processing stages. Indeed, figural illustrations often show a distinct response activation stage that is followed by a subsequent response selection stage (e.g., Lien and Proctor 2002; Schubert et al. 2008). However, one may also think of response selection as a processing stage that entails two processes that start at the same time. A fast and automatic response activation process accumulates evidence in favor of a certain response. A slower response identification process verifies the correctness of the accumulated evidence and needs to intervene if the activated response does not match the required response (see Kornblum et al. 1990). Importantly, response activation and response identification do not necessarily form separable subsequent processing stages in that conception, but their interplay determines the duration of response selection.
- 6.
While many studies demonstrated (or at least assumed) that the experience of between-task interference triggers sequential modulations of the BCE, it is important to note that such sequential modulations were also observed when half of the previous trials did not provide a typical experience of between-task interference. Schonard et al. (2020), for example, reported sequential modulations of the BCE when the previous trial had a long SOA (i.e., 1000 ms). This is particularly interesting, because at such long SOAs, critical stages usually do not temporally overlap, and thus, no between-task interference should occur. The fact that sequential modulations of the BCE were nevertheless observed calls the immediate experience of between-task interference as the sole explanation of sequential modulations into question.
References
Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.006
Allport, A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24(2), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335557243000102
Anguera, J. A., Boccanfuso, J., Rintoul, J. L., Al-Hashimi, O., Faraji, F., Janowich, J., . . . Gazzaley, A. (2013). Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature, 501(7465), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12486nature12486
Arnsten, A. F. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/Nrn2648
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., Hackley, S. A., & Ulrich, R. (2006). The locus of temporal preparation effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 536–542. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193882
Beste, C., Mückschel, M., Paucke, M., & Ziemssen, T. (2018). Dual-tasking in multiple sclerosis – Implications for a cognitive screening instrument. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00024
Bock, O., Wechsler, K., Koch, I., & Schubert, T. (2021). Dual-task interference and response strategies in simulated car driving: impact of first-task characteristics on the psychological refractory period effect. Psychological Research, 85(2), 568–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01272-5
Borger, R. (1963). The refractory period and serial choice-reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216308416546
Botvinick, M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
Bratzke, D., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2009). The source of execution-related dual-task interference: Motor bottleneck or response monitoring? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1413–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015874
Brüning, J., Koob, V., Manzey, D., & Janczyk, M. (2022). Serial and parallel processing in multitasking: Concepts and the impact of interindividual differences on task and stage levels. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performane. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001008
Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367
Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97(4), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.4.523
Bush, W. S., & Vecera, S. P. (2014). Differential effect of one versus two hands on visual processing. Cognition, 133(1), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.014
Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108(4), 847–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.847
Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1339–1348. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1339
Davoli, C. C., & Brockmole, J. R. (2012). The hands shield attention from visual interference. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(7), 1386–1390. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0351-7
De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(5), 965–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.19.5.965
Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2015). Conflicts as aversive signals for control adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569569
Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2016). Conflicts as aversive signals: Motivation for control adaptation in the service of affect regulation. In Todd Braver (Ed.), Motivation and cognitive control. New York: Psychology Press.
Duncan, J. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5(2), 216–228. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.5.2.216
Durst, M., & Janczyk, M. (2018). The motor locus of no-go backward crosstalk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(12), 1931–1946. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000565
Durst, M., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Two types of backward crosstalk: Sequential modulations and evidence from the diffusion model. Acta Psychologica, 193, 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.013
Durst, M., Ulrich, R., & Janczyk, M. (2019). To prepare or not to prepare? When preparation of a response in Task 2 induces extra performance costs in Task 1. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(2), 654–660. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01581-1
Dux, P. E., Ivanoff, J., Asplund, C. L., & Marois, R. (2006). Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved fMRI. Neuron, 52(6), 1109–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.11.009
Dux, P. E., Tombu, M., Harrison, S., Rogers, B. P., Tong, F., & Marois, R. (2009). Training improves multitasking performance by increasing the speed of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.005
Egner, T. (2017). Conflict adaptation: Past, present, and future of the congruence sequence effect as an index of cognitive control. In T. Egner (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Cognitive Control (pp. 64–78). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellenbogen, R., & Meiran, N. (2011). Objects and events as determinants of parallel processing in dual tasks: Evidence from the backward compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 152–167. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0019958
Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007). Controlling attention through action: Observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologia, 45(14), 3351–3355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.012
Feng, S. F., Schwemmer, M., Gershman, S. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2014). Multitasking versus multiplexing: Toward a normative account of limitations in the simultaneous execution of control-demanding behaviors. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0236-9
Filmer, H. L., Lyons, M., Mattingley, J. B., & Dux, P. E. (2017). Anodal tDCS applied during multitasking training leads to transferable performance gains. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 12988. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13075-y
Filmer, H. L., Mattingley, J. B., & Dux, P. E. (2013). Improved multitasking following prefrontal tDCS. Cortex, 49(10), 2845–2852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.08.015
Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). Predicting high levels of multitasking reduces between-tasks interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(6), 1482–1487. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000157
Fischer, R., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). Shielding and relaxation in multitasking: Prospect of reward counteracts relaxation of task shielding in multitasking. Acta Psychologica, 191, 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.09.002
Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034310
Fischer, R., & Hommel, B. (2012). Deep thinking increases task-set shielding and reduces shifting flexibility in dual-task performance. Cognition, 123, 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.015
Fischer, R., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Schubert, T. (2011). Selective impairment of masked priming in dual-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 572–595. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F17470218.2010.505984
Fischer, R., & Liepelt, R. (2020). Embodied cognition in multitasking: Increased hand-specific task shielding when stimuli are presented near the hand. Psychological Research, 84(6), 1668–1682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01174-6
Fischer, R., Miller, J., & Schubert, T. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1685–1699. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193502
Fischer, R., & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking: Parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01366
Fischer, R., Plessow, F., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2010). Trial-to-trial modulations of the Simon effect in conditions of attentional limitations: Evidence from dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(6), 1576–1594. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019326
Fischer, R., & Schubert, T. (2008). Valence processing bypassing the response selection bottleneck? Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Experimental Psychology, 55(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.55.3.203
Garner, K. G., & Dux, P. E. (2015). Training conquers multitasking costs by dividing task representations in the frontoparietal-subcortical system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 112(46), 14372–14377. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511423112
Garner, K. G., Tombu, M., & Dux, P. E. (2014). The influence of training on the attentional blink and psychological refractory period. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 76(4), 979–999. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0638-y
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Göthe, K., Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2016). Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings. Cognition, 150, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.003
Gottschalk, C., & Fischer, R. (2017). Activation of context-specific attentional control sets by exogenous allocation of visual attention to the context? Psychological Research, 81(2), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0746-5
Greenwald, A. G., & Shulman, H. G. (1973). On doing two things at once II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035451
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Halvorson, K. M., Ebner, H., & Hazeltine, E. (2013). Investigating perfect timesharing: The relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029475
Halvorson, K. M., & Hazeltine, E. (2015). Do small dual-task costs reflect ideomotor compatibility or the absence of crosstalk? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0813-8
Harleß, E. (1861). Der Apparat des Willens [The apparatus of will]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 38(2), 50–73.
Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70(6), 504–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0017-3
Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52(4), 291–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.11.001
Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 527–545. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.28.3.527
Hein, G., & Schubert, T. (2004). Aging and input processing in dual-task situations. Psychology and Aging, 19(3), 416–432. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0882-7974.19.3.416
Hirsch, P., Nolden, S., & Koch, I. (2017). Higher-order cognitive control in dual tasks: Evidence from task-pair switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(3), 569–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000309
Hirsch, P., Nolden, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2018). Hierarchical task organization in dual tasks: Evidence for higher level task representations. Psychological Research, 82(4), 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0851-0
Hockey, G. R. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45(1–3), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(96)05223-4
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.5.1368
Hommel, B. (2020). Dual-task performance: Theoretical analysis and an event-coding account. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.114
Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66(4), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0100-y
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878; discussion 878–937. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103
Hommel, B., Sellaro, R., Fischer, R., Borg, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2016). High-frequency binaural beats increase cognitive flexibility: Evidence from dual-task crosstalk. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1287. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01287
Hosang, T. J., Fischer, R., Pomp, J., & Liepelt, R. (2018). Dual-tasking in the near-hand space: Effects of stimulus-hand proximity on between-task shifts in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1942. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01942
Hsu, W. Y., Zanto, T. P., Anguera, J. A., Lin, Y. Y., & Gazzaley, A. (2015). Delayed enhancement of multitasking performance: Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on the prefrontal cortex. Cortex, 69, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.014
Hsu, W. Y., Zanto, T. P., van Schouwenburg, M. R., & Gazzaley, A. (2017). Enhancement of multitasking performance and neural oscillations by transcranial alternating current stimulation. PLoS One, 12(5), e0178579. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178579
Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2013). Constraints in task-set control: Modality dominance patterns among effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 633–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030156
Huestegge, L., Pieczykolan, A., & Koch, I. (2014). Talking while looking: On the encapsulation of output system representations. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.06.001
Janczyk, M. (2013). Level 2 perspective taking entails two processes: Evidence from PRP experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1878–1887. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0033336
Janczyk, M. (2016). Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(5), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000170
Janczyk, M. (2017). A common capacity limitation for response and item selection in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(11), 1690–1698. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000408
Janczyk, M., & Berryhill, M. E. (2014). Orienting attention in visual working memory requires central capacity: decreased retro-cue effects under dual-task conditions. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 76(3), 715–724. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0615-x
Janczyk, M., Durst, M., & Ulrich, R. (2017). Action selection by temporally distal goal states. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(2), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1096-4
Janczyk, M., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Effects of a no-go Task 2 on Task 1 performance in dual-tasking: From benefits to costs. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 79(3), 796–806. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1257-6
Janczyk, M., Humphreys, G. W., & Sui, J. (2019). The central locus of self-prioritisation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1068–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818778970
Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2020). Dual tasking from a goal perspective. Psychological Review, 127, 1079–1096.https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000222
Janczyk, M., & Lerche, V. (2019). A diffusion model analysis of the response-effect compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000430
Janczyk, M., Mittelstädt, P., & Wienrich, C. (2018). Parallel dual-task processing and task-shielding in older and younger adults: Behavioral and diffusion model results. Experimental Aging Research, 44(2), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2017.1422459
Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Crognale, M. A., & Kunde, W. (2012). Effective rotations: Action effects determine the interplay of mental and manual rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026997
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001
Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Wallmeier, G., & Kunde, W. (2014). Exceptions to the PRP effect? A comparison of prepared and unconditioned reflexes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 776–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035548
Janczyk, M., Renas, S., & Durst, M. (2018). Identifying the locus of compatibility-based backward crosstalk: Evidence from an extended PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000445
Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Dual-task interference and visual encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(3), 596–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.3.596
Jolicoeur, P., & Dell’Acqua, R. (1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36(2), 138–202. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0684
Jolicoeur, P., Tombu, M., Oriet, C., & Stevanovski, B. (2002). From perception to action: Making the connection. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and Performance XX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 558–586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F14640746808400145
Keele, S. W. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ko, Y. T., & Miller, J. (2014). Locus of backward crosstalk effects on task 1 in a psychological refractory period task. Experimental Psychology, 61(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000224
Koch, I. (2009). The role of crosstalk in dual-task performance: Evidence from manipulating response-code overlap. Psychological Research, 73(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0152-8
Koch, I., & Jolicoeur, P. (2007). Orthogonal cross-task compatibility: Abstract spatial coding in dual tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.3758/Bf03194026
Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2002). Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 30(8), 1297–1303. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213411
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000144
Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(1), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.192
Koob, V., Ulrich, R., & Janczyk, M. (2021). Response activaiton and activation-transmission in response-based backward crosstalk: Analyses and simulations with an extended diffusion model. Psychological Review. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/rev0000326
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility – A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253
Kübler, S., Reimer, C. B., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2018). The impact of free-order and sequential-order instructions on task-order regulation in dual tasks. Psychological Research, 82(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0910-6
Kübler, S., Soutschek, A., & Schubert, T. (2019). The causal role of the lateral prefrontal cortex for task-order coordination in dual-task situations: A study with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(12), 1840–1856. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01466
Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387–394. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387
Kunde, W., Wirth, R., & Janczyk, M. (2018). The role of feedback delay in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 82(1), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0874-6
Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: Evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets. Psychological Research, 73(5), 707–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0162-6
Lehle, C., Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Serial or parallel processing in dual tasks: What is more effortful? Psychophysiology, 46(3), 502–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00806.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01690.x
Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(4), 1260–1280. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.26.4.1260
Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 212–238. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196277
Lien, M. C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S., & Yu, Y. T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194040
Lien, M. C., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (2006). Attentional limitations in doing two tasks at once – The search for exceptions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00413.x
Liepelt, R., & Fischer, R. (2016). Task demands determine hand posture bias on conflict processing in a Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(2), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0901-9
Liepelt, R., Fischer, R., Frensch, P., & Schubert, T. (2011). Practice-related reduction of dual-task costs under conditions of a manual-pedal response combination. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.448025
Liepelt, R., Strobach, T., Frensch, P., & Schubert, T. (2011). Improved intertask coordination after extensive dual-task practice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(7), 1251–1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.543284
Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.393
Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1072–1090. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1072
Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 556–574. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.556
Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2005). Increased control demand results in serial processing: Evidence from dual-task performance. Psychological Science, 16(10), 833–840. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.2005.01622.x
Mahesan, D., Janczyk, M., & Fischer, R. (2021). Two types of between-task conflict trigger respective processing adjustments within one dual-task. Acta Psychologica, 221, 103450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103450
Maquestiaux, F., Lyphout-Spitz, M., Ruthruff, E., & Arexis, M. (2020). Ideomotor compatibility enables automatic response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01735-6
Marois, R., & Ivanoff, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(6), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.010
Marti, S., Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2012). A shared cortical bottleneck underlying Attentional Blink and Psychological Refractory Period. Neuroimage, 59(3), 2883–2898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.063
McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(2), 471–484. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.18.2.471
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0048850
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3–65. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.3
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1999). Precis to a practical unified theory of cognition and action: Some lessons from EPIC computational models of human multiple-task performance. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0011-9
Miller, J. (2017). Psychophysiological measurement of backward response activation in the prioritized processing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(5), 941–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000356
Miller, J., & Alderton, M. (2006). Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 149–165. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.149
Miller, J., & Durst, M. (2014). “Just do it when you get a chance”: The effects of a background task on primary task performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(8), 2560–2574. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0730-3
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000103
Miller, J., & Reynolds, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(6), 1126–1142. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1126
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.08.003
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000277
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Möschl, M., Walser, M., Plessow, F., Goschke, T., & Fischer, R. (2017). Acute stress shifts the balance between controlled and automatic processes in prospective memory. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 144, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2017.06.002
Musslick, S., & Cohen, J. D. (2019). A mechanistic account of constraints on control-dependent processing: Shared representations, conflict and persistence. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 849–855). Montreal.
Musslick, S., & Cohen, J. D. (2021). Rationalizing constraints on the capacity for cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(9), 757–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.06.001
Naefgen, C., Caissie, A. F., & Janczyk, M. (2017). Stimulus-response links and the backward crosstalk effect – A comparison of forced- and free-choice tasks. Acta Psychologica, 177, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.03.010
Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human information-processing system. Psychological Review, 86(3), 214–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.3.214
Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.435
Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44(3), 193–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0767
Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104(2), 266–300. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.266
Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2004). Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 689–707. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.689
Olivers, C. N., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2006). The beneficial effects of additional task load, positive affect, and instruction on the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 364–379. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.364
Oriet, C., Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2005). Symbolic distance affects two processing loci in the number comparison task. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 913–926. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193085
Paelecke, M., & Kunde, W. (2007). Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(3), 627–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.627
Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(3), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.358
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220
Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
Pashler, H., Carrier, M., & Hoffman, J. (1993). Saccadic eye movements and dual-task interference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(1), 51–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401067
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748908402351
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Peterson, L. R. (1969). Concurrent verbal activity. Psychological Review, 76(4), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027443
Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2012). Harless’ apparatus of will: 150 years later. Psychological Research, 76(5), 561–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0362-3
Plessow, F., Fischer, R., Kirschbaum, C., & Goschke, T. (2011). Inflexibly focused under stress: Acute psychosocial stress increases shielding of action goals at the expense of reduced cognitive flexibility with increasing time lag to the stressor. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3218–3227. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00024
Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2012). Better not to deal with two tasks at the same time when stressed? Acute psychosocial stress reduces task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(3), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0098-6
Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2017). Successful voluntary recruitment of cognitive control under acute stress. Cognition, 168, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.016
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 849–860. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.3.849
Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., & Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: Attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 166–177. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.166
Renas, S., Durst, M., & Janczyk, M. (2018). Action effect features, but not anatomical features, determine the backward crosstalk effect: Evidence from crossed-hands experiments. Psychological Research, 82(5), 970–980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0873-7
Röttger, E., & Haider, H. (2017). Investigating the characteristics of “not responding”: Backward crosstalk in the PRP paradigm with forced vs. free no-go decisions. Psychological Research, 81(3), 596–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0772-3
Ruiz Fernandez, S., Leonhard, T., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Processing two tasks with varying task order: Central stage duration influences central processing order. Acta Psychologica, 137(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.016
Ruiz Fernández, S., & Ulrich, R. (2010). Late backward effects in the refractory period paradigm: Effects of Task 2 execution on Task 1 performance. Psychological Research, 74(4), 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0260-0
Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research, 70(6), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0012-8
Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 3–21. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.3
Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 280–289. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.280
Ruthruff, E., Miller, J., & Lachmann, T. (1995). Does mental rotation require central mechanisms? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 552–570. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.552
Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.101
Scherbaum, S., Gottschalk, C., Dshemuchadse, M., & Fischer, R. (2015). Action dynamics in multitasking: The impact of additional task factors on the execution of the prioritized motor movement. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 934. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00934
Schneider, C., Bade, N., & Janczyk, M. (2020). Is immediate processing of presupposition triggers automatic or capacity-limited? A combination of the PRP approach with a self-paced reading task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09686-3
Schneider, C., & Janczyk, M. (2020). Capacity limitations of processing presuppositions triggered by determiners. Acta Psychologica, 211, 103159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103159
Schonard, C., Ulrich, R., & Janczyk, M. (2020). The backward crosstalk effect does not depend on the degree of a preceding response conflict. Experimental Psychology, 67(5), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000498
Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performanc, 25(2), 408–425. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.25.2.408
Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 376–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.376
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000576
Schubert, T., & Szameitat, A. J. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of interference in overlapping dual tasks: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00198-8
Schuch, S., Dignath, D., Steinhauser, M., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Monitoring and control in multitasking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1512-z
Schumacher, E. H., Lauber, E. J., Glass, J. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Gmeindl, L., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1999). Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(3), 791–814. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.25.3.791
Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9280.00318
Schweickert, R. (1983). Latency network theory: Scheduling of processes in sentence verification and the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 353–383. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7393.9.3.353
Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 157–167). New York: Academic Press.
Shapiro, L. (2019). Embodied Cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020541
Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: Dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biology, 4(7), e220. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040220
Spelke, E., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(76)90018-4
Steinhauser, M., Ernst, B., & Ibald, K. W. (2017). Isolating component processes of posterror slowing with the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(4), 653–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000329
Stelzel, C., Brandt, S. A., & Schubert, T. (2009). Neural mechanisms of concurrent stimulus processing in dual tasks. Neuroimage, 48(1), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.064
Stelzel, C., & Schubert, T. (2011). Interference effects of stimulus-response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness. Psychological Research, 75(6), 476–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0368-x
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. In W. G. Koster (Ed.), Attention and performance II (pp. 276–315). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Strobach, T., Frensch, P. A., Soutschek, A., & Schubert, T. (2012). Investigation on the improvement and transfer of dual-task coordination skills. Psychological Research, 76(6), 794–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0381-0
Strobach, T., Salminen, T., Karbach, J., & Schubert, T. (2014). Practice-related optimization and transfer of executive functions: A general review and a specific realization of their mechanisms in dual tasks. Psychological Research, 78(6), 836–851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0563-7
Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2017). Mechanisms of practice-related reductions of dual-task interference with simple tasks: data and theory. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0204-7
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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00403
Strobach, T., Soutschek, A., Antonenko, D., Floel, A., & Schubert, T. (2015). Modulation of executive control in dual tasks with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Neuropsychologia, 68, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.12.024
Surrey, C., Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2017). Context-specific adjustment of cognitive control: Transfer of adaptive control sets. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(11), 2386–2401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1239748
Szameitat, A. J., Lepsien, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Sterr, A., & Schubert, T. (2006). Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: An event-related fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70(6), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0015-5
Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073262
Thomson, S. J., Danis, L. K., & Watter, S. (2015). PRP training shows Task1 response selection is the locus of the backward response compatibility effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0660-z
Tombu, M., Asplund, C. L., Dux, P. E., Godwin, D., Martin, J. W., & Marois, R. (2011). A unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science USA, 108(33), 13426–13431. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103583108
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66(4), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0101-x
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.3
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(5), 795–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.795
Trikojat, K., Buske-Kirschbaum, A., Plessow, F., Schmitt, J., & Fischer, R. (2017). Memory and multitasking performance during acute allergic inflammation in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 47(4), 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.12893
Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57(2), 75–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.06.004
Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000218
Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(2), 254–277. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193674
Welford, A. T. (1952). The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high-speed performance – A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x
Wessel, J. R. (2018). Prepotent motor activity and inhibitory control demands in different variants of the go/no-go paradigm. Psychophysiology, 55(3), e12871. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12871
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman, J. Beatty, & R. Davis (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101). New York: Wiley.
Wirth, R., Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2018). Effect monitoring in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000474
Yildiz, A., & Beste, C. (2015). Parallel and serial processing in dual-tasking differentially involves mechanisms in the striatum and the lateral prefrontal cortex. Brain Structure & Function, 220, 3131–3142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-014-0847-0
Zwosta, K., Hommel, B., Goschke, T., & Fischer, R. (2013). Mood states determine the degree of task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognition and Emotion, 27(6), 1142–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.772047
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fischer, R., Janczyk, M. (2022). Dual-Task Performance with Simple Tasks. In: Kiesel, A., Johannsen, L., Koch, I., Müller, H. (eds) Handbook of Human Multitasking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04760-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04760-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-04759-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-04760-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)