Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of free-order and sequential-order instructions on task-order regulation in dual tasks

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

Abstract

Dual tasks (DTs) are characterized by the requirement for additional mechanisms that coordinate the processing order of two temporally overlapping tasks. These mechanisms are indicated by two types of costs that occur when comparing DT blocks with fixed and random orders of the component tasks. On a block level, task-order control costs are reflected in increased reaction times (RTs) in random-order compared to fixed-order blocks, indicating global, monitoring-based, coordination mechanisms. On a trial level, within random-order blocks, order-switch costs are indicated by increased RTs on order switch compared to order repetition trials, reflecting memory-based mechanisms that guide task-order in DTs. To test the nature of these mechanisms in two experiments, participants performed DTs in fixed- and random-order blocks. In random-order blocks, participants were either instructed to respond to both tasks according to the order of task presentation (sequential-order instruction) or instructed to freely decide in which order to perform both tasks (free-order instruction). As a result of both experiments, we demonstrated that task-order control costs were reduced under the free-order compared to the sequential-order instruction, whereas order-switch costs were not affected by our instruction manipulation. This pattern of results suggests that the task-order control costs reflect global processes of task-order regulation such as engaging monitoring processes that are sensitive to changes in order instructions, while order-switch costs reflect rather local memory-based mechanisms that occur irrespective of any effort to coordinate task-order.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To further analyze the lacking effect of the instruction manipulation on order switch costs, we applied Bayesian-like interference testing. According to Wagenmakers (2007), we tested the posterior probability (Pr(H0|D)) of a hypothesis assuming a missing interaction of the factors Instruction group and Trial type versus a hypothesis assuming a significant interaction of these factors by calculating the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) between both. With ∆BIC = 3.66 and Pr(H0|D) = 0.86 this analysis provides ‘positive’ evidence for the assumption that order-switch costs did not differ between both groups.

  2. As in Experiment 1, we tested the posterior probability (Pr(H0|D)) of a hypothesis assuming a missing interaction of the factors Instruction group and Trial type versus a hypothesis assuming a significant interaction of these factors by calculating the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). With ∆BIC = 3.07 and Pr(H0|D) = 0.82 this analysis provides ‘positive’ evidence for the assumption that order-switch costs do not differ between the sequential- and the free-order instruction condition.

References

  • Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Voluntary task switching: Chasing the elusive homunculus. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 683–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39, 713–726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeJong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 48(2), 2–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2006). Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 334–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrich, E., Strobach, T., Müller, H., & Schubert, T. (2017) (submitted). Processing order in dual-task situations: The ‘first come, first serve’ principle and the order of task order instruction (Manuscript submitted for publication).

  • 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, 569–580.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, N. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Prinz, W., & Allport, A. (2005). Involuntary retrieval in alphabet-arithmetic tasks: task-mixing and task-switching costs. Psychological Research, 69(4), 252–261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kray, J., & Lindenberger, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task switching. Psychology and Aging, 15, 126–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., Strobach, T., Frensch, P., & Schubert, T. (2011). Improved inter-task coordination skills after extensive dual-task practice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1251–1272.

    Article  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. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Perception and Peformance, 29(3), 556–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2006). Dual route for subtask order control: Evidence from the psychological refractory paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masson, M. E. J., & Carruthers, S. (2014). Control processes in voluntary and explicitly cued task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1944–1958.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U. (2002). Inhibition of action rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Bell, T. (2006). On how to be unpredictable: Evidence from the voluntary task-switching paradigm. Psychological Science, 17, 774–780.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multi-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104(1), 749–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reuss, H., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hommel, B. (2011). Unconscious activation of task sets. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 556–567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1477–1491.

    Article  PubMed  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, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. (2008). The central attentional limitation and executive control. Frontiers in Bioscience, 13(9), 3569–3580.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: Dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biology, 4(7), e220. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040220.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzel, C., Kraft, A., Brandt, S. A., & Schubert, T. (2008). Dissociable neural effects of task order control and task set maintenance during dual-task processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuoscience, 20(4), 613–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strobach, T., Soutschek, A., Antonenko, D., Flöel, A., & Schubert, T. (2015). Modulation of executive control in dual tasks with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Neuropsychologia, 68, 8–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szameitat, A. J., Schubert, T., Müller, K., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(8), 1184–1199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problem of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Kübler, Christina B. Reimer & Torsten Schubert

  2. Department of Psychology, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany

    Sebastian Kübler, Christina B. Reimer & Torsten Schubert

  3. Department of Psychology, Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Tilo Strobach

Authors
  1. Sebastian Kübler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina B. Reimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tilo Strobach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Torsten Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sebastian Kübler or Torsten Schubert.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) with a grant to T.S. (last author), SCHU 1397/7-1, and it is part of the Priority Program, SPP 1772 of the DFG.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kübler, S., Reimer, C.B., Strobach, T. et al. The impact of free-order and sequential-order instructions on task-order regulation in dual tasks. Psychological Research 82, 40–53 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0910-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0910-6

Search

Navigation