Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies showed that some dual tasks can be performed simultaneously without costs. Yet, a variable SOA between the inputs to such tasks leads to strategic, often involuntary, prioritization of one of the two tasks. Here we explore the boundary conditions for this involuntary or exogenous strategy. In Experiment 1, subjects were initially trained on dual task performance where the input to the two tasks is presented simultaneously (0 SOA). We used two tasks that under such conditions can be performed without costs and indeed subjects displayed perfect sharing of the tasks. Subjects then performed the same two tasks but with a variable SOA (0, 50, 150, 800 ms). This manipulation led to a serial-like performance of the two tasks even in trials with 0 SOA. In Experiment 2, subjects participated in eight sessions. Within each session, they performed in alternation blocks with a fixed 0 SOA and blocks with a variable SOA. Subjects displayed perfect sharing in the pure 0 SOA blocks but performed the two tasks serially in the mixed SOA blocks despite receiving identical instructions. These findings demonstrate that task context is a powerful factor in dual task performance and may lead subjects to involuntarily exhibit dual task costs even in conditions where they can perform the tasks without any costs. Moreover, these findings strongly suggest that costs observed in PRP studies reflect the use of such exogenous strategies rather than a general structural dual task limitation.

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
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24(2), 225–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bertelson, P. (1966). Central intermittency twenty years later. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(2), 153–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A., & Feintuch, U. (2002). The dimensional-action system: A distinct visual system. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 587–608). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A., Israel, M., Zuckerman, M., & Glicksohn, A. (2011). Components of dual task performance: Modularity across perception and action, memory and strategy. Unpublished data.

  • Cohen, A., & Shoup, R. (1997). Perceptual dimensional constraints in response selection processes. Cognitive Psychology, 32(2), 128–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965–980.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feintuch, U., & Cohen, A. (2002). Visual attention and coactivation of response decisions for features from different dimensions. Psychological Science, 13(4), 361–369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70(6), 504–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J. C., & Pashler, H. (1990). Close binding of identity and location in visual feature perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 16(4), 843–856.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Engiewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 862–869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2005). Increased control demand results in serial processing: Evidence from dual-task performance. Psychological Science, 16(10), 833–840.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magen, H., & Cohen, A. (2007). Modularity beyond perception: Evidence from single task interference paradigms. Cognitive Psychology, 55(1), 1–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magen, H., & Cohen, A. (2010). Modularity beyond perception: Evidence from the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 395–414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. E. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove: Psychology Press/Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled & automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27(3), 525–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 25(2), 408–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. H., Lauber, E. J., Glass, J. M., Zurbriggen, E. I., Gmeindl, L., Kieras, D. E., et al. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. H., Schwarb, H., Lightman, E., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task. Psychological Research.

  • Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M. (1988). Attention. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzay, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Steven’s handbook of experimental psychology: Volume 2. Learning and Cognition (pp. 739–811). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. C. (1967). Theories of the psychological refractory period. Psychological Bulletin, 67(3), 202–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzel, C., Brandt, S. A., & Schubert, T. (2009). Neural mechanisms of concurrent stimulus processing in dual tasks. Neuroimage, 48(1), 237–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D’Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: An fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70(6), 514–525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011) The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0353-4

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1997). Decision and response in dual-task interference. Cognitive Psychology, 33(3), 266–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, A. T. (1952). An apparatus for use in studying serial performance. The American Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 91–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Visual search in continuous, naturalistic stimuli. Vision Research, 34(9), 1187–1195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partially funded by a grant from the Israel Science Foundations to Asher Cohen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University, 91905, Jerusalem, Israel

    Moran Israel & Asher Cohen

Authors
  1. Moran Israel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asher Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moran Israel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Israel, M., Cohen, A. Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance. Psychological Research 75, 513–524 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0359-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0359-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation