Sequential modulation of across-task congruency in the serial reaction time task

et al. 2021

Journal of Cognition

Self Cite

Research on the limitations of dual-tasking might profit from using setups with a predictable sequence of stimuli and responses and assessing the acquisition of this sequence. Detrimental effects of dual-tasking on implicit sequence learning in the serial reaction time task (SRTT; Nissen & Bullemer, 1987)-when paired with an uncorrelated task-have been attributed to participants' lack of separating the streams of events in either task. Assuming that co-occurring events are automatically integrated, we reasoned that participants could need to first learn which events co-occur, before they can acquire sequence knowledge. In the training phase, we paired an 8-element visual-manual SRTT with an auditory-vocal task. Afterwards, we tested under single-tasking conditions whether SRTT sequence knowledge had been acquired. By applying different variants of probabilistic SRTT-tone pairings across three experiments, we tested what type of predictive relationship was needed to preserve sequence learning. In Experiment 1, where half of the SRTT-elements were paired to 100% with one specific tone and the other half randomly, only the fixedly paired elements were learned. Yet, no sequence learning was found when each of the eight SRTT-elements was paired with tone identity in a 75%-25% ratio (Experiment 2). Sequence learning was, however, intact when the 75%-25% ratio was applied to the four SRTT target locations instead (Experiment 3). The results suggest that participants (when lacking a separation of the task representations while dual-tasking) can learn a sequence inherent in one of two tasks to the extent that across-task contingencies can be learned first.

Section: Frequency Effect In Blocksupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Iri Distributionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why Does Dual-Tasking Hamper Implicit Sequence Learning?

Röttger

Zhao

et al. 2021

Journal of Cognition

Self Cite

“…Unbeknownst to the participants, the marked screen locations follow a regular sequence. Even though implicit learning is generally a robust phenomenon (e.g., Reber, 1993), it is often found to be hampered in dualtasking, especially if the stimuli in the other task are drawn randomly (Hsiao & Reber, 2001;Rah et al, 2000;Röttger et al, 2019Röttger et al, , 2021Schmidtke & Heuer, 1997;Schumacher & Schwarb, 2009;Zhao et al, 2020).…”

Section: Task Integration In Dual-taskingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning of across- and within-task contingencies modulates partial-repetition costs in dual-tasking

Pelzer

Naefgen

et al. 2021

Psychological Research

Self Cite

Dual-task costs might result from confusions on the task-set level as both tasks are not represented as distinct task-sets, but rather being integrated into a single task-set. This suggests that events in the two tasks are stored and retrieved together as an integrated memory episode. In a series of three experiments, we tested for such integrated task processing and whether it can be modulated by regularities between the stimuli of the two tasks (across-task contingencies) or by sequential regularities within one of the tasks (within-task contingencies). Building on the experimental approach of feature binding in action control, we tested whether the participants in a dual-tasking experiment will show partial-repetition costs: they should be slower when only the stimulus in one of the two tasks is repeated from Trial n − 1 to Trial n than when the stimuli in both tasks repeat. In all three experiments, the participants processed a visual-manual and an auditory-vocal tone-discrimination task which were always presented concurrently. In Experiment 1, we show that retrieval of Trial n − 1 episodes is stable across practice if the stimulus material is drawn randomly. Across-task contingencies (Experiment 2) and sequential regularities within a task (Experiment 3) can compete with n − 1-based retrieval leading to a reduction of partial-repetition costs with practice. Overall the results suggest that participants do not separate the processing of the two tasks, yet, within-task contingencies might reduce integrated task processing.

Element-level features in conjoint episodes in dual-tasking

Pelzer

Naefgen

et al. 2022

Psychological Research

Self 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.