Using response time modeling to understand the sources of dual-task interference in a dynamic environment.

Abstract

This paper examines the causes of dual-task interference in a time pressured dynamic environment. Resource sharing theories are often used as a theoretical framework to understand dual-task interference. These frameworks propose that resources from a limited pool of information-processing capacity is reallocated towards the primary task as task load increases, and as a result, secondary-task performance declines if the total demand exceeds capacity limit. However, tests of resource models have relied on behavioral results that could be due to a number of different cognitive processes, including changes in response caution, rate of information processing, non-decision processes and response biases. We applied evidence-accumulation models to quantify the cognitive processes underlying performance in a dual-task paradigm in order to examine the causes underlying dual-task interference. We fit performance in time-pressured environment on both a primary classification task and a secondary detection task using evidence-accumulation models. Under greater time pressure, the rate of information processing increased for the primary task while response caution decreased, whereas the rate of information processing for the secondary task declined with greater time pressure. Assuming the rate of evidence accumulation is proportional to available capacity these results are consistent with resource theory and highlight the value of evidence-accumulation models for understanding the complex set of processes underlying dual-task interference.

On the Cost of Detection Response Task Performance on Cognitive Load

“…The increase in cognitive load found with DRT was also supported by self-reported ratings of mental workload and n -back performance, with higher ratings and lower n -back performance found in the DRT-present condition relative to the one without DRT across the three n -back tasks. These results are inconsistent with that found in the study by Palada et al (2019), in which authors found no practical difference in the primary classification task performance in the presence of DRT. Also, while the decrease in tracking task performance found with DRT was minimal in the study by Castro et al (2019), here the increase in pupil diameter found with DRT (1.09 to 1.78 pixels) was comparable to that observed when transitioning from the relatively easy 0-back to the highly taxing 2-back task (1.77 pixels).…”

“…This is due to the operational dynamics of the passive perceptual selection mechanism whose capacity to process less relevant information is exhausted in high load scenarios (but which still processes even secondary stimuli in conditions of low load). Such interpretation would help reconcile our results with the studies by Palada et al (2019) and Castro et al (2019) whereby a minimal although significant decline in primary task performance was found when DRT was present.…”

“…Despite the general agreement that DRT, and its tactile version in particular, does not impose additional perceptual or sensory load, a growing number of studies investigate whether the presence of DRT could add onto the cognitive load in multitasking scenarios. Palada et al (2019) had participants complete a classification task where they were required to distinguish between targets and nontargets presented on a computer screen. This task was performed with or without the tactile DRT.…”

The persistence of distraction: The hidden costs of intermittent multitasking.

“…For example, Castro et al (2019) found that the introduction of the DRT with an easily perceived visual stimulus and a simple response slightly degraded pursuit-tracking performance (the primary task). In a simulator study, Strayer et al (2015) also found that subjective workload was not altered with the introduction of the DRT and Palada et al (2019) found that the DRT did not significantly interfere with the primary task of classifying maritime ships as friend of foe. By contrast, Castro et al (2019) reported that a visual stimulus that was difficult to perceive or a modification of the DRT task to a choice discrimination produced significantly greater interference on the primary task.…”

Electrophysiological evidence against parallel motor processing during multitasking

“…According to response selection bottleneck (RSB) accounts, the response selection stage of T 2 has to wait until the response selection stage of T 1 has been finished—that is, structural limitations only allow serial processing at this stage (e.g., Han & Marois, 2013; Marois & Ivanoff, 2005; Pashler, 1994; Ruthruff et al., 2001). In contrast, resource‐sharing accounts assume that the system is in principle able to select multiple responses in parallel but that the limited cognitive resources needed for response selection must be strategically shared between the two tasks depending on task requirements (e.g., Boag et al., 2019; Lieder & Griffiths, 2020; Mittelstädt & Miller, 2017; Navon & Miller, 2002; Palada et al., 2019; Tombu & Jolicœur, 2003).…”