Evidence for a multicomponent hierarchical representation of dual tasks

Hirsch, Patricia; Roesch, Clara; Koch, Iring

doi:10.3758/s13421-020-01097-3

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A third point, important to discuss is that at first sight our current findings are at odds with current results of Kübler et al, ( 2018 , 2021 ), Kübler, ( 2021 ), Strobach et al ( 2021 ) or Hirsch et al ( 2021 ). These experiments differ conceptually from our focus on the task-element level because they investigate on a more abstract task set level the effects of changing task order sets or task-pair sets.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Element-level features in conjoint episodes in dual-tasking

Pelzer

Naefgen

Gaschler

et al. 2022

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

“…Slightly different, Hirsch and colleagues (Hirsch et al, 2017(Hirsch et al, , 2018(Hirsch et al, , 2021 changed during dual-task training the specific task set combination. That is, either the particular task set presented as Task 1 (e.g., A → B; C → B) or as Task 2 (e.g., A → B; A → C) were replaced by another one.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Element-level features in conjoint episodes in dual-tasking

Pelzer

Naefgen

Gaschler

et al. 2022

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, task-specific adjustments are supported by recent findings that each task combination in a dual task is internally represented as its own entity (Hirsch et al, 2017(Hirsch et al, , 2018(Hirsch et al, , 2021. Implementing two varying secondary tasks (T2 and T3) alongside a constant first task (T1) in a PRP paradigm, switch costs were found when the secondary task changed between trials.…”

Section: Implications For Task-general or Task-specific Adjustments I...mentioning

confidence: 76%

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

Lück

Mittelstädt

Mackenzie

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although humans often multitask, little is known about how the processing of concurrent tasks is managed. The present study investigated whether adjustments in parallel processing during multitasking are local (task-specific) or global (task-unspecific). In three experiments, participants performed one of three tasks: a primary task or, if this task did not require a response, one of two background tasks (i.e., prioritized processing paradigm). To manipulate the degree of parallel processing, we presented blocks consisting mainly of primary or background task trials. In Experiment 1, the frequency manipulation was distributed equally across the two background tasks. In Experiments 2 and 3, only one background task was frequency-biased (inducer task). The other background task was presented equally often in all blocks (diagnostic task) and served to test whether processing adjustments transferred. In all experiments, blocks with frequent background tasks yielded stronger interference between primary and background tasks (primary task performance) and improved background task performance. Thus, resource sharing appeared to increase with high background task probabilities even under triple task requirements. Importantly, these adjustments generalized across the background tasks when they were conceptually and visually similar (Experiment 2). Implementing more distinct background tasks limited the transfer: Adjustments were restricted to the inducer task in background task performance and only small transfer was observed in primary task performance (Experiment 3). Overall, the results indicate that the transfer of adjustments in parallel processing is unrestricted for similar, but limited for distinct tasks, suggesting that task similarity affects the generality of resource allocation in multitasking.

show abstract

“…One last point, important to discuss is the relation between across-task integration on the level of stimuli and responses versus on the level of (sub)task-sets as observed by Kübler et al, ( 2018 , 2021 ), Strobach et al ( 2021 ) or Hirsch et al ( 2021 ). The focus of these experiments differs from our focus on the level of task-elements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pelzer,

Naefgen,

Herzig

et al. 2024

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent findings suggest that in dual-tasking the elements of the two tasks are associated across tasks and are stored in a conjoint memory episode, meaning that the tasks are not represented as isolated task-sets. In the current study, we tested whether frequent long stimulus onset ansynchronies (SOAs) can foster the representation of two separated task-sets thereby reducing or even hindering participants to generate conjoint memory episodes—compared to an integrated task-set representation induced by frequent short SOAs. Alternatively, it is conceivable that conjoint memory episodes are an inevitable consequence of presenting two tasks within a single trial. In two dual-task experiments, we tested between consecutive trials whether repeating the stimulus–response bindings of both tasks would lead to faster responses than repeating only one of the two tasks’ stimulus–response bindings. The dual-task consisted of a visual-manual search task (VST) and an auditory-manual discrimination task (ADT). Overall, the results suggest that, after processing two tasks within a single trial, generating a conjoint memory episode seems to be a default process, regardless of SOA frequency. However, the respective SOA frequency affected the participants’ strategy to group the processing of the two tasks or not, thereby modulating the impact of the reactivated memory episode on task performance.

show abstract

Evidence for a multicomponent hierarchical representation of dual tasks

Cited by 8 publications

References 53 publications

Element-level features in conjoint episodes in dual-tasking

Element-level features in conjoint episodes in dual-tasking

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About