Response-code conflict in dual-task interference and its modulation by age

Dual-Action Costs and Benefits in a Uni-Modal Single-Onset Paradigm

While performing two actions at the same time has mostly been associated with reduced performance, several recent studies have observed the opposite effect, that is, dual-action benefits. Previous evidence suggests that dual-action benefits result from single-action inhibitory costs - more specifically, it appears that under certain circumstances, single-action representations are derived from dual-action representations by removing (i.e., inhibiting) one of the component actions. In the present paper, we investigated if this is tied to the presence of multi-modal response demands (i.e., responses making use of two different effector systems). We implemented a very simple experimental paradigm where participants responded to a single stimulus with zero, one, or two uni-modal responses. As predicted, we did not observe dual-action benefits, but rather significant dual-action costs. Furthermore, a trial-by-trial sequence analysis revealed that alternations between both single-action responses were associated with significantly better performance than all other types of action switches. This can be accounted for by assuming that actions are represented as "feature bundles" and that switching a single, binary distinctive feature of an action to its opposite is relatively easy.

Brain functional characterization of response-code conflict in dual-tasking and its modulation by age

Crosstalk between conflicting response codes contributes to interference in dual-tasking, an effect exacerbated in advanced age. Here, we investigated (i) brain activity correlates of such response-code conflicts, (ii) activity modulations by individual dual-task performance and related cognitive abilities, (iii) task-modulated connectivity within the task network, and (iv) age-related differences in all these aspects. Young and older adults underwent fMRI while responding to the pitch of tones through spatially mapped speeded button presses with one or two hands concurrently. Using opposing stimulus-response mappings between hands, we induced conflict between simultaneously activated response codes. These response-code conflicts elicited activation in key regions of the multiple-demand network. While thalamic and parietal areas of the conflict-related network were modulated by attentional, working-memory and task-switching abilities, efficient conflict resolution in dual-tasking mainly relied on increasing supplementary motor activity. Older adults showed non-compensatory hyperactivity in left superior frontal gyrus, and higher right premotor activity was modulated by working-memory capacity. Finally, connectivity between premotor or parietal seed regions and the conflict-sensitive network was neither conflict-specific nor age-sensitive. Overall, resolving dual-task response-code conflict recruited substantial parts of the multiple-demand network, whose activity and coupling, however, were only little affected by individual differences in task performance or age.

On doing multi-act arithmetic: A multitrait-multimethod approach of performance dimensions in integrated multitasking

Here we present a systematic plan to the experimental study of test-retest reliability in the multitasking domain, adopting the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) approach to evaluate the psychometric properties of performance in Düker-type speeded multiple-act mental arithmetic. These form of tasks capacitate the experimental analysis of integrated multi-step processing by combining multiple mental operations in flexible ways in the service of the overarching goal of completing the task. A particular focus was on scoring methodology, particularly measures of response speed variability. To this end, we present data of two experiments with regard to (a) test-retest reliability, (b) between-measures correlational structure, (c) and stability (test-retest practice effects). Finally, we compared participants with high versus low performance variability to assess ability-related differences in measurement precision (typically used as proxy to "simulate" patient populations), which is especially relevant in the applied fields of clinical neuropsychology. The participants performed two classic integrated multi-act arithmetic tasks, combining addition and verification (Exp. 1) and addition and comparison (Exp. 2). The results revealed excellent test-retest reliability for the standard and the variability measures. The analysis of between-measures correlational structure revealed the typical pattern of convergent and discriminant relationships, and also, that absolute response speed variability was highly correlated with average speed (r > 0.85), indicating that these measures mainly deliver redundant information. In contrast, speed-adjusted (relativized) variability revealed discriminant validity being correlated to a much lesser degree with average speed, indicating that this measure delivers additional information not already provided by the speed measure. Furthermore, speed-adjusted variability was virtually unaffected by test-retest practice, which makes this measure interesting in situations with repeated testing.

Given the option, people avoid incongruent responses in a dual-tasking situation

While past work on how people can optimize dual-tasking has focused on strategic timing (i.e., when to select responses), little is known about the extent to which people can optimize dual-tasking by taking care of which responses they select. Here we test whether spatial (in)congruency influences response selection in free-choice trials. In two experiments, we combined two visual-manual tasks with spatial stimulus- and response characteristics: Participants responded to the stimulus words "left" and "right" in a forced choice task and responded "up", "down", "left" or "right" with an arrow-key to either a free choice prompt or an X located at the respective position. In Experiment 1, participants reduced the proportion of incongruent pairs of responses (i.e., left in one and right in the other task). In Experiment 2, we found that such flexibility in response selection also holds in more constrained environments: Within runs of four trials the free-choice options were continuously reduced based on the responses already given. The combined results of Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that response selection in free choice trials is driven by performance optimization beyond response conflict.

Response modalities and the cognitive architecture underlying action control: Intra-modal trumps cross-modal action coordination

Performing two actions at the same time usually hampers performance. Previous studies have demonstrated a strong impact of the particular effector systems on performance in multiple action control situations. However, an open question is whether performance is generally better or worse in situations in which two actions within the same effector system are coordinated (intra-modal actions: e.g., two pedal or two manual actions) compared to situations requiring two different effector systems (cross-modal actions: e.g., a manual combined with a vocal action). Performance differences can be predicated, among others, in the light of encapsulation accounts. Encapsulation of modules on the output side of processing would suggest that actions in two different modules can be triggered simultaneously without significant interference between the actions. Thus, cross-modal actions should lead to better performance compared to intra-modal actions. We investigated this issue in two basic experiments, in which participants responded to a single stimulus (thereby maximizing control over input and central processing stages) with one or two either intra-modal or cross-modal responses (manual-manual vs. manual-oculomotor/manual-vocal in Experiment 1/2, respectively). The results represent clear evidence for a performance advantage of intra-modal over cross-modal action control across both effector system combinations and independent of the particular spatial compatibility relation between responses. The results suggest performance benefits by taking advantage of integrated, holistic representations of intra-modal action compounds.