Element-level features in conjoint episodes in dual-tasking

Abstract

The usual way of thinking about dual-tasking is that the participants represent the two tasks separately. However, several findings suggest that the participants rather seem to integrate the elements of both tasks into a conjoint episode. In three experiments, we aimed at further testing this task integration account in dual-tasking. To this end, we investigated how the processing of the previous Trial n-1 shapes the processing of the current Trial n. We observed performance benefits when the stimulus–response mappings of both tasks repeat in consecutive trials (full repetition: FR) as compared to when only one such mapping repeats (partial repetition: PR). In particular, our experiments focused on the question which elements of the two tasks in dual-tasking might be bound together. For this purpose, in Experiments 1 and 2, all participants performed a dual-task consisting of a visual–manual search task (VST) and an auditory–manual discrimination task (ADT). In the VST the stimulus–response mappings were variable, so that none of the stimuli of this task systematically predicted a certain response. In Experiment 1, the stimuli and responses of the VST were either both repeated or both changed in consecutive trials. In Experiment 2, we removed the stimulus repetitions in the VST and only the responses repeated across trials. In Experiment 3, we changed the ADT into a visual–auditory matching task (VAMT) with variable stimulus–response mappings, so that in both tasks only the responses repeated across trials. In Experiments 1 and 2, we observed better performance for FR than for PR, while this difference disappeared in Experiment 3. Together, the results suggest that the stimulus of one task is sufficient to retrieve the entire episode from the previous trial.

Can frequent long stimulus onset ansynchronies (SOAs) foster the representation of two separated task-sets in dual-tasking?

“…Unbeknownst to the participants, the marked screen locations follow a regular and repeating sequence. Implicit learning is a generally robust phenomenon (e.g., Reber, 1993 ). For instance, the meta-analysis of Oliveira et al ( 2023 ) found that reliability of the SRTT was not significantly affected by factors such as participants’ age, sequence type and variant of computing the index of procedural learning.…”