Electrophysiological evidence against parallel motor processing during multitasking

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Evidence of resource sharing in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm.

“…In general, the finding that resource allocation effects can explain performance in the present PRP paradigm fits well with growing evidence indicating that an interplay of cognitive control and resource sharing also influences performance in other multitasking environments (Boag, Strickland, Heathcote, et al, 2019; Boag, Strickland, Loft, et al, 2019; Miller & Tang, 2021; Mittelstädt et al, 2022; Palada et al, 2019). Clearly, the question of what constitutes cognitive resources could be further elucidated, but for now it seems quite reasonable to assume that working memory can be seen as a limited resource (Huynh Cong & Kerzel, 2021, 2022; Janczyk, 2017; Musslick & Cohen, 2021; Redick et al, 2016).…”

Cortical sources of electroencephalographic alpha rhythms related to the anticipation and experience of mirror visual feedback‐induced illusion of finger movements

“…The LRPs can be obtained by (1) averaging the ongoing EEG activity related to many repetitions of a voluntary unilateral limb movement, using the onset of the related muscle electromyographic activity or the movement onset as a zero time for that averaging, and (2) subtracting the averaged event‐related potentials at the homologous central electrodes of the two hemispheres. These LRPs reflect the prominent steeper increase in the negative scalp potentials as a measure of the increasing somatomotor cortical excitability during the preparation of voluntary movements (Mittelstadt et al, 2022). LRPs showed low amplitude when unilateral hand movements were experienced as bilateral movements during the MVF‐induced illusion, while they showed high amplitude during the control unilateral hand movements performed without MVF (Debnath & Franz, 2016; Touzalin‐Chretien et al, 2009, 2010; Touzalin‐Chretien & Dufour, 2008).…”

Transfer of task-probability-induced biases in parallel dual-task processing occurs in similar, but is constraint in distinct task sets.

“…It indicates to which degree processing in Task 1 is affected by simultaneous processing of Task 2 (e.g., Hommel, 1998; Lien & Proctor, 2002; Logan & Schulkind, 2000). 1 This backward crosstalk typically occurs at the central processing stages (Janczyk, 2016; Mittelstädt et al, 2022), which conflicts with assumptions of an all-or-none RSB that does not allow for any additional central processing. As a consequence, it has been suggested that the original response selection stage might be divided into an automatic response activation stage, which allows for crosstalk, and a subsequent capacity-limited response identification stage that needs to be performed sequentially (Hommel, 1998; Lien & Proctor, 2002; Schubert et al, 2008).…”

“…Despite the fact that participants performed only one task in each trial, the background task nevertheless interfered with primary task processing as reflected in BCEs, suggesting parallel processing (for similarities to classical dual-task paradigms and effects, see Miller & Durst, 2015). Critically, by increasing the relative probability of responding to the background versus primary task, participants were encouraged to allocate more resources to the high-frequency task (Miller & Tang, 2021; Mittelstädt et al, 2022). Indeed, primary task processing was generally faster and showed smaller BCE in blocks with many primary tasks (i.e., high primary [HiPri] blocks) compared to blocks with many background tasks (i.e., high background [HiBac] blocks).…”