Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period

Dual-task interference in simulated car driving: The psychological refractory period effect when not only the second, but also the first task is ecologically relevant

The psychological refractory period (PRP) effect denotes the finding that shortening the temporal interval between two tasks leads to increased reaction time in the second task. Earlier work in driving simulators confirmed the emergence of a PRP effect even if the second task (T2) was ecologically relevant, such as in a car-braking task. Here we evaluate the PRP effect if the first task (T1) is ecologically relevant as well. In a driving simulator, participants had to warn pedestrians against crossing the street (T1), and had to brake when the lead car braked (T2). As the temporal interval between tasks decreased, reaction time in T2 increased, confirming once more the emergence of a PRP effect. The PRP effect in our study was larger than in previous studies where T1 was artificial rather than ecologically relevant. This suggests that an ecologically relevant T1 is processed more elaborately, resulting in stronger interference with T2.

Investigation of reward effects in overlapping dual-task situations

In dual-task (DT) situations, performance in reaction time and error rates decrease compared with single-task situations. These performance decrements are usually explained with the serial processing at the response selection stage constituting a bottleneck. Evidence for this assumption stems from the observation that response times for the second task (task 2; RT 2) increase with decreasing stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA). In this study, we investigated the effect of reward on bottleneck processing in DTs. In Experiment 1, we addressed two questions. First, does reward provided for task 2 performance affect task 2 performance, or does it affect task 1 performance? To conclude whether reward affected task 2 or task 1 performance, we relied on the psychological refractory period paradigm (PRP) as a chronometric tool. Second, we asked for the locus of the reward effect within the DT stream. We demonstrated shorter RTs in task 1 in a rewarded compared with an un-rewarded condition indicating reward affected task 1 processing. Furthermore, this reward effect is propagated onto task 2 at short SOA suggesting that the locus of the reward effect can be pinpointed before or at the bottleneck of task 1. In Experiment 2, we tested for the locus of the effect propagation onto task 2. To this end, we implemented an additional difficulty manipulation of the response selection of task 2 and found that the reward effect is propagated from task 1 onto the response selection stage of task 2.

Temporal productions in a variable environment: timing starts from stimulus identification rather than onset

Timing an interval is integral in everyday life, from crossing a street or boiling an egg to playing sports and chatting with friends. In the current article, participants were asked to produce durations ranging from 500 to 1250 ms by either terminating an automatically initiated duration, or by maintaining a key press. When participants expected this production to start was manipulated using a variable foreperiod. Further, between subjects, the durations required for production were either variable or constant within a block. Together, these manipulations set up a temporally-and event-uncertain environment. When participants both initiated and terminated an interval, the uncertainty of the environment did not systematically affect productions. However, when productions were only terminated, productions were longer and given more uncertainty. While the effects of timing onset could be attributed to when a participant registers a stimulus, the effects of uncertainty with regards to what duration would be required for production indicates that participants appear to register what a stimulus is prior to initiating their timing. This finding indicates that timing may relate to when a stimulus is identified, rather than when it is first perceived. Alternatively, perhaps the onset of timing is postponed by event uncertainty.

Electrophysiological examination of response-related interference while dual-tasking: is it motoric or attentional?

The possibility that interference between motor responses contributes to dual-task costs has long been neglected, yet is supported by several recent studies. There are two competing hypotheses regarding this response-related interference. The motor-bottleneck hypothesis asserts that the motor stage of Task 1 triggers a refractory period that delays the motor stage of Task 2. The response-monitoring hypothesis asserts that monitoring of the Task-1 motor response delays the response-selection stage of Task 2. Both hypotheses predict lengthening of Task-2 response time (RT2) when Task 1 requires motor processing relative to when it does not. However, they assume different loci for the response-related bottleneck, and therefore make different predictions regarding (a) the interaction between Task-1 motor requirement and the Task-2 difficulty effect as measured by RT2 and (b) the premotoric durations and motoric durations of Task 2 as measured by lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs). To test these predictions, we conducted two experiments manipulating the Task-1 motor requirement (Go vs. NoGo) and Task-2 response-selection difficulty, as well as the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA). Task-1 motor processing significantly lengthened RT2, suggesting response-related interference. Importantly, the Task-1 motor response reduced the Task-2 difficulty effect at the short SOA, indicating postponement of the Task-2 motor stage, consistent with the motor-bottleneck hypothesis. Further consistent with the motor-bottleneck hypothesis, the Task-2 LRP indicated a consistent premotoric duration of Task 2 regardless of Task-1 motor requirement. These results are difficult to reconcile with the response-monitoring hypotheses, which places the response-related bottleneck before the response-selection stage of Task 2. The results also have important implications regarding use of locus-of-slack logic in PRP studies.

Dual-task interference and response strategies in simulated car driving: impact of first-task characteristics on the psychological refractory period effect

Presentation of a task T1 typically delays the response to a subsequent task T2, more so with high temporal task overlap than with low temporal overlap. This so-called "psychological refractory period effect" (PRP effect) has been observed even if T1 required not a choice between distinct stimulus-response pairs, but rather between a given stimulus-response pair occurring once or twice. We explored which response strategy participants use for responding to such an unusual type of T1 and how such a T1 interacts with T2 performance. In a driving simulator, participants followed a lead car and had to honk when that car's rear window changed color (T1). In condition "pure", the color always changed once and required a single honk; in condition "mixed", the color changed once and required a single honk on some trials, but on other trials, it changed twice 200 ms apart and required a double honk. Participants also had to brake when the lead car braked (T2). On dual-task trials, T1 preceded T2 with a varying stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 50-1200 ms. Reaction time to the first T1 stimulus was similar in "pure" and "mixed" and it was comparable with the reaction time to the second T1 stimulus. Reaction time to the T2 stimulus increased as SOA decreased from 350 to 50 ms, confirming the existence of a PRP effect. Furthermore, reaction time to the T2 stimulus was similar in "pure" and in "mixed" with one T1 stimulus, but was higher in "mixed" with two T1 stimuli. This pattern of findings is compatible with the view that presentation of the first T1 stimulus triggers a single response, which is amended into a double response, if a second T1 stimulus is displayed. The amendment does not need to wait until central processing of the original response is completed, and it therefore begins with no delay beyond the regular reaction time. Our findings further suggest that the mere possibility of a second T1 stimulus being presented does not increase the PRP effect on T2, probably because response amendments are not equivalent to classical response choices. However, the actual presentation of a second T1 stimulus indeed does increase the PRP effect on T2, probably because amendments start 200 ms later than the original response, and therefore prolong central processing of T1.

Localizing practice effects in dual-task performance

Practice effects on dual-task processing are of interest in current research because they may reveal the scope and limits of parallel task processing. Here we used onsets of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), a time marker for the termination of response selection, to assess processing changes after five consecutive dual-task sessions with three stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and priority on Task 1. Practice reduced reaction times in both tasks and the interference between tasks. As indicated by the LRP, the reduction of dual-task costs can be explained most parsimoniously by a shortening of the temporal demands of central bottleneck stages, without assuming parallel processing. However, the LRP also revealed a hitherto unreported early activation over the parietal scalp after practice in the short SOA condition, possibly indicating the isolation of stimulus–response translation from other central processing stages. In addition, further evidence was obtained from the LRP for a late motoric bottleneck, which is robust against practice.

Effect of Complexity of the Second Response on Reaction Time to the First Response in the Psychological Refractory Period Paradigm

An attempt to distinguish serial from parallel models of central processing was made by manipulating the relative complexity of R2 and observing the effect of this manipulation on RT1 in the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm. 14 subjects performed under two conditions, either a simple or complex R2. Experimental controls were used to prevent a possible grouping effect of responses. The results did not support a parallel model of central processing but did support a serial view. Implications of results, combined with previous findings, for a more flexible model of central processing were discussed.

The Microstructure of Dual-Task Interaction. 1. The Patterning of Main-Task Responses within Secondary-Task Intervals

The patterning or microstructure of a situation where subjects were presented with two sets of information from two independent ‘high decision’ information processing tasks, was investigated. Thirty-two subjects worked at the five-choice serial-response task (designated by instructions to be the main task), whilst being presented with a transformation task which required that seven had to be added to a presented auditory digit (designated by instructions to be the secondary task). Results suggested that subjects were not able to process two streams of information in parallel, and that the way in which the attention process was ordered was partly a function of task instructions and partly a function of the random occurrence of each digit in relation to the on-going serial task. Results also gave support to the view that the locus of disruption was the production of the response to the secondary task. Explanations of this effect are considered.

Central Interference in Driving

Participants attempted to perform two tasks concurrently during simulated driving. In the choice task, they responded either manually or vocally to the number of times a visual or auditory stimulus occurred; in the braking task, they depressed a brake pedal in response to the lead car's brake lights. The time delay between the onset of the tasks' stimuli, or stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), was varied. The tasks were differentially affected by the manipulations. Brake reaction times increased as SOA was reduced, showing the psychological refractory period effect, whereas the choice task showed large effects of the stimulus and response modalities but only a small effect of SOA. These results demonstrate that a well-practiced “simple” task such as vehicle braking is subject to dual-task slowing and extend the generality of the central-bottleneck model.

Central as well as Peripheral Attentional Bottlenecks in Dual-Task Performance Activate Lateral Prefrontal Cortices

Human information processing suffers from severe limitations in parallel processing. In particular, when required to respond to two stimuli in rapid succession, processing bottlenecks may appear at central and peripheral stages of task processing. Importantly, it has been suggested that executive functions are needed to resolve the interference arising at such bottlenecks. The aims of the present study were to test whether central attentional limitations (i.e., bottleneck at the decisional response selection stage) as well as peripheral limitations (i.e., bottleneck at response initiation) both demand executive functions located in the lateral prefrontal cortex. For this, we re-analyzed two previous studies, in which a total of 33 participants performed a dual-task according to the paradigm of the psychological refractory period (PRP) during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). In one study (N = 17), the PRP task consisted of two two-choice response tasks known to suffer from a central bottleneck (CB group). In the other study (N = 16), the PRP task consisted of two simple-response tasks known to suffer from a peripheral bottleneck (PB group). Both groups showed considerable dual-task costs in form of slowing of the second response in the dual-task (PRP effect). Imaging results are based on the subtraction of both single-tasks from the dual-task within each group. In the CB group, the bilateral middle frontal gyri and inferior frontal gyri were activated. Higher activation in these areas was associated with lower dual-task costs. In the PB group, the right middle frontal and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) were activated. Here, higher activation was associated with higher dual-task costs. In conclusion we suggest that central and peripheral bottlenecks both demand executive functions located in lateral prefrontal cortices (LPFC). Differences between the CB and PB groups with respect to the exact prefrontal areas activated and the correlational patterns suggest that the executive functions resolving interference at least partially differ between the groups.

Are processing limitations of visual attention and response selection subject to the same bottleneck in dual-tasks?

Visual attention and response selection are processes that are limited by capacity. The present study focuses on whether visual attention is subject to the response selection bottleneck. This was investigated by conducting 2 dual-task experiments of the psychological refractory period (PRP) type. A visual conjunction search task was chosen as Task 2 in these experiments. Conjunction search requires the binding of the stimulus' defining features. This binding is performed in a serial search process in displays of different amounts of stimuli until the presence or absence of the target is correctly indicated. In Experiment 1, the conjunction search was combined with a 2-choice tone discrimination Task 1, and in Experiment 2 with a 2-choice color discrimination Task 1. Detailed reaction time (RT) analyses revealed concurrent performance of visual search to both tone and color in Task 1's response selection. In conclusion, visual attention is not subject to the response selection bottleneck.

Through the portal: Effect anticipation in the central bottleneck

Ample evidence suggests that motor actions are generated by mentally recollecting their sensory consequences, i.e., via effect anticipations. There is less evidence, though, on the capacity limitations that such effect anticipations suffer from. In the present paper we aim to overcome shortcomings of previous research on this issue by extending the set of empirical indicators of effect anticipations and by using trial-wise instead of block-wise manipulations. In four experiments using the locus of slack- and the effect propagation-logic, we found conclusive evidence for effect anticipation taking place in the capacity-limited central bottleneck. These findings extend previous research suggesting an overlap of a "response selection" process as assumed in traditional stage theory and effect anticipation processes as assumed in effect-based ideomotor models of action control.

A startling acoustic stimulus interferes with upcoming motor preparation: Evidence for a startle refractory period

When a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) is presented in a simple reaction time (RT) task, response latency is significantly shortened. The present study used a SAS in a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm to determine if a shortened RT1 latency would be propagated to RT2. Participants performed a simple RT task with an auditory stimulus (S1) requiring a vocal response (R1), followed by a visual stimulus (S2) requiring a key-lift response (R2). The two stimuli were separated by a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), and a typical PRP effect was found. When S1 was replaced with a 124dB SAS, R1 onset was decreased by 40-50ms; however, rather than the predicted propagation of a shortened RT, significantly longer responses were found for RT2 on startle trials at short SOAs. Furthermore, the 100ms SOA condition exhibited reduced peak EMG for R2 on startle trials, as compared to non-startle trials. These results are attributed to the startling stimulus temporarily interfering with cognitive processing, delaying and altering the execution of the second response. In addition to this "startle refractory period," results also indicated that RT1 latencies were significantly lengthened for trials that immediately followed a startle trial, providing evidence for longer-term effects of the startling stimulus.

Processing demands during mental operations

Man possesses a central system of limited capacity. Theorists at first described this system as a single limited capacity channel Two current theoretical alternatives to single-channel theory are (1) the undifferentiated capacity hypothesis that man possesses a pool of capacity units so that interference occurs oniy if the total number of capacity units that mental operations demand exceeds the system limit and (2) the hypothesis that some, but not all, mental operations require space in a limited capacity central mechanism and that any operation that requires space will interfere with any other operation that also demands space. Time on task fails as a sensitive measure of capacity demands because some task components require time but not full processing capacity. The secondary task technique uses the interference between a primary task and a secondary task to assess the extent to which the primary task makes processing demands on the central limited system. Processing demands have been measured for five categories of mental operation: (1) encoding, (2) multiple input, (3) rehearsal, (4) transformation, and (5) responding.

Evidence for a response preparation bottleneck during dual-task performance: effect of a startling acoustic stimulus on the psychological refractory period

The present study was designed to investigate the mechanism associated with dual-task interference in a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. We used a simple reaction time paradigm consisting of a vocal response (R1) and key-lift task (R2) with a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between 100ms and 1500ms. On selected trials we implemented a startling acoustic stimulus concurrent with the second stimulus to determine if we could involuntarily trigger the second response. Our results indicated that the PRP delay in the second response was present for both control and startle trials at short SOAs, suggesting the second response was not prepared in advance. These results support a response preparation bottleneck and can be explained via a neural activation model of preparation. In addition, we found that the reflexive startle activation was reduced in the dual-task condition for all SOAs, a result we attribute to prepulse inhibition associated with dual-task processing.

Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming

Researchers have found no agreement on whether dual-task interference in language performance, such as dual-task interference from tone discrimination on picture naming, reflects passive queuing or active scheduling of processes for each task. According to a passive-queuing account, while a central response-selection bottleneck is occupied by the tone discrimination task, picture naming is held in a passive queue until the bottleneck is freed. In contrast, according to an active-scheduling account, participants determine the order in which the tasks proceed, monitor progress on the tasks, suspend picture naming and hold it in working memory, and determine when to resume picture naming. Here, we report a study that assessed the relative merits of the queuing and scheduling accounts by examining whether the magnitude of dual-task interference in picture naming is associated with individual differences in the capacity of monitoring and updating of working memory representations, as assessed by the operation-span task. We observed that the updating/monitoring ability correlated with the speed of picture naming and with the magnitude of the interference from tone discrimination on picture naming. These results lend support to the active-scheduling account of dual-task interference in picture naming.

Mitigating the effects of in-vehicle distractions through use of the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm

Modern driving involves frequent and potentially detrimental interactions with distracting in-vehicle tasks. Distraction has been shown to slow brake reaction time and decrease lateral and longitudinal vehicle control. It is likely that these negative effects will become more prevalent in the future as advances are made in the functionality, availability, and number of in-vehicle systems. This paper addresses this problem by considering ways to manage in-vehicle task presentation to mitigate their distracting effects. A driving simulator experiment using 48 participants was performed to investigate the existence of the Psychological Refractory Period in the driving context and its effect on braking performance. Drivers were exposed to lead vehicle braking events in isolation (single-task) and with a preceding surrogate in-vehicle task (dual-task). In dual-task scenarios, the time interval between the in-vehicle and braking tasks was manipulated. Brake reaction time increased when drivers were distracted. The in-vehicle task interfered with the performance of the braking task in a manner that was dependent on the interval between the two tasks, with slower reactions following a shorter inter-task interval. This is the Psychological Refractory Period effect. These results have implications for driver safety during in-vehicle distraction. The findings are used to develop recommendations regarding the timing of in-vehicle task presentation so as to reduce their potentially damaging effects on braking performance. In future, these guidelines could be incorporated into a driver workload management system to minimise the opportunity for a driver to be distracted from the ongoing driving task.

The BUMP model of response planning: intermittent predictive control accounts for 10 Hz physiological tremor

Physiological tremor during movement is characterized by ∼10 Hz oscillation observed both in the electromyogram activity and in the velocity profile. We propose that this particular rhythm occurs as the direct consequence of a movement response planning system that acts as an intermittent predictive controller operating at discrete intervals of ∼100 ms. The BUMP model of response planning describes such a system. It forms the kernel of Adaptive Model Theory which defines, in computational terms, a basic unit of motor production or BUMP. Each BUMP consists of three processes: (1) analyzing sensory information, (2) planning a desired optimal response, and (3) execution of that response. These processes operate in parallel across successive sequential BUMPs. The response planning process requires a discrete-time interval in which to generate a minimum acceleration trajectory to connect the actual response with the predicted future state of the target and compensate for executional error. We have shown previously that a response planning time of 100 ms accounts for the intermittency observed experimentally in visual tracking studies and for the psychological refractory period observed in double stimulation reaction time studies. We have also shown that simulations of aimed movement, using this same planning interval, reproduce experimentally observed speed-accuracy tradeoffs and movement velocity profiles. Here we show, by means of a simulation study of constant velocity tracking movements, that employing a 100 ms planning interval closely reproduces the measurement discontinuities and power spectra of electromyograms, joint-angles, and angular velocities of physiological tremor reported experimentally. We conclude that intermittent predictive control through sequential operation of BUMPs is a fundamental mechanism of 10 Hz physiological tremor in movement.

Influence of global motion onset on goal-directed eye movements

Saccades are very rapid eye movements in between two phases of fixation, which offer a precise measure of behaviour for the direction of the spotlight of attention. The onset of global motion is known to attract our attention reflexively. We asked whether brief global motion stimuli are able to modify the execution of saccades. When participants performed visually guided saccades towards a target presented in front of a structured background, saccade latency was 174 ms on average and correctness of saccades was 100%. If the presentation of the target occurred at the same time as the onset of a brief global motion signal, then the saccade latency increased dramatically to 243 ms with a slight decrease in correctness to 89%. However, if the motion stimulus preceded the presentation of the target, then the latency decreased to 114 ms while the correctness dropped close to chance levels (62%).

Performance degradation and altered cerebral activation during dual performance: evidence for a bottom-up attentional system

Subjects performed a continuous tracking concurrently with an intermittent visual detection task to investigate the existence of competition for a capacity-limited stage (a bottleneck stage). Both perceptual and response-related processes between the two tasks were examined behaviorally and the changes in brain activity during dual-tasking relative to single-task were also assessed. Tracking error and joystick speed were analyzed for changes that were time-locked to visual detection stimuli. The associated brain activations were examined with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). These were analyzed using mixed block and event-related models to tease apart sustained neural activity and activations associated with individual events. Increased tracking error and decreased joystick speed were observed relative to the target stimuli in the dual-task condition only, which supports the existence of a bottleneck stage in response-related processes. Neuroimaging data show decreased activation to target relative to non-target stimuli in the dual-task condition in the left primary motor and somatosensory cortices controlling right-hand tracking, consistent with the tracking interference observed in behavioral data. Furthermore, the ventral attention system, rather than the dorsal attention system, was found to mediate task coordination between tracking and visual detection.

The BUMP model of response planning: variable horizon predictive control accounts for the speed-accuracy tradeoffs and velocity profiles of aimed movement

The BUMP model is a comprehensive discrete-time computational model of response planning. Developed within the Adaptive Model Theory framework, it is based on intermittent optimal control. The theory posits a basic unit of motor production (BUMP) that is determined by a planning system that operates intermittently at fixed intervals of time. Given sensory information about the position and velocity of the actual response as well as the predicted future state of the target, the response planning system generates an optimal response trajectory to reach the predicted future state of the target and to compensate for executional error. The ability to vary the duration, or prediction horizon, of the trajectory gives rise to the concept of variable horizon predictive control. We propose that the combination of signal-dependent noise in the nervous system and variable horizon predictive control accounts for the well-known speed-accuracy tradeoffs and velocity profiles in aimed movements. Conducting a simulation study, we found that on one extreme of variable horizon control, a receding horizon strategy reproduced Fitts' law and corresponding asymmetrical velocity profiles. On the other extreme, a fixed horizon strategy reproduced the linear tradeoff and corresponding symmetrical velocity profiles. We conclude that the BUMP model provides a unifying theoretical bridge between speed-accuracy tradeoffs and the accompanying velocity profiles of aimed movement.

Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors

According to the extended bottleneck model, dual-task interference does not arise only from a central bottleneck but also from processing limitations at the motor stage. Evidence for this assumption has previously been found only for same-effector tasks but not for different-effector tasks. In order to examine the existence of motor interference with different effectors, we used the psychological refractory period paradigm and employed response sequences of different length in Task 1 (R1 sequence length). Experiment 1 incorporated vocal response sequences in Task 1 and a manual response in Task 2. In Experiment 2, the assignment of the effectors to the two tasks was reversed. In both experiments, the long R1 sequence prolonged reaction time for Task 2 (RT2), and this effect was reduced with decreasing temporal overlap of the two tasks. Thus, the present experiments demonstrate motor interference between different-effector tasks. This interference may be due to on-line programming or to central response monitoring.

Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: models and contamination effects

Response grouping is a ubiquitous phenomenon in psychological refractory period (PRP) tasks, yet it hampers the analysis of dual-task performance. To account for response grouping, we developed several extended versions of the standard bottleneck model, each of which incorporates a possible grouping mechanism into this model. Computer simulations were used to assess how the predictions of the standard model would change with each grouping mechanism. One set of simulations investigated the basic effects of grouping on the means and intercorrelation of the reaction times in the two tasks, as well as the percentage of trials with short interresponse times (IRTs). A second set of simulations examined whether response grouping would invalidate the use of PRP paradigms for localizing experimental effects. Finally, we investigated whether the post-hoc elimination of trials with short IRTs removes the contaminating effects of response grouping.

Brain activity associated with dual-task management differs depending on the combinations of response modalities

Several functional imaging studies have demonstrated the importance of fronto-parietal network in dual-task management. However, neural correlates underlying the difference in intensity of dual-task interference between the same and different response modalities remain unknown. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between brain activity associated with dual-task management and the combinations of response modalities. We used the dual-task requiring bilateral finger responses (DT-same condition) and that requiring finger and oral responses (DT-different condition) to visual and auditory stimuli. The right premotor cortex, precuneus and right posterior parietal cortex were significantly activated in the DT-same condition. The neural activities in the right premotor cortex significantly correlated to the delayed responses in the DT-same condition relative to the single-task conditions, indicating that the right premotor cortex is partly associated with dual-task management (i.e., the regulation of information flow). In addition, neural activity in this brain region was significantly higher in the DT-same condition than in the DT-different condition, suggesting that the difference in intensity between the same and different response modalities is partly associated with difference in the load on the premotor cortex between the DT-same and DT-different conditions. The significant activation of the parietal cortex also differed between the DT-same and DT-different conditions. These results demonstrate that brain activity associated with dual-task management differs depending on the combination of response modalities and that such a difference in brain activity, particularly in the right premotor cortex, might be partly associated with the difference in intensity of dual-task interference between the DT-same and DT-different conditions.

Electrophysiological evidence of central interference in the control of visuospatial attention

Visuospatial attention can be deployed to different locations in space without movement of the eyes. A large body of human electrophysiological studies reveals enhanced sensory-perceptual responses to stimuli that appear at an attended location. However, it is not clear that the mechanisms that underlie visuospatial attention are under the control of attention mechanisms that limit central processing in multiple-task situations. We investigated this question by incorporating a visual task that required the deployment of visuospatial attention as the second task of psychological refractory period (PRP) dual-task paradigms. The N2pc component of the event-related potential was used as an electrophysiological index of the moment-by-moment deployment of visuospatial attention to monitor when and where observers were attending while they performed concurrent central processing known to cause the PRP effect. Electrophysiological evidence shows that central processing interfered with the N2pc, suggesting that visuospatial attention is under the control of capacity-limited central mechanisms.

Keeping one's cool: trait anger, hostile thoughts, and the recruitment of limited capacity control

A regulatory perspective on trait anger suggests that low-trait-anger individuals may recruit limited-capacity cognitive control resources following the activation of hostile thoughts. Because no prior studies directly examine such processes, the present studies seek to do so. Study 1 reveals that a simple word-evaluation paradigm can be used to examine individual differences in hostile reactivity, in that high-trait-anger individuals display more pronounced tendencies to evaluate words negatively following a hostile prime. Studies 2-4 examine a cognitive control account of such findings. Study 2 finds that time-limiting evaluations eliminate trait-linked differences in evaluative priming. Studies 3 and 4 find that low-trait-anger individuals display deficits on a secondary task immediately following the activation of a hostile thought. All studies, then, converge on the link between low trait anger and the spontaneous recruitment of limited-capacity cognitive control resources following hostile primes.

Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved FMRI

When humans attempt to perform two tasks at once, execution of the first task usually leads to postponement of the second one. This task delay is thought to result from a bottleneck occurring at a central, amodal stage of information processing that precludes two response selection or decision-making operations from being concurrently executed. Using time-resolved functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), here we present a neural basis for such dual-task limitations, e.g. the inability of the posterior lateral prefrontal cortex, and possibly the superior medial frontal cortex, to process two decision-making operations at once. These results suggest that a neural network of frontal lobe areas acts as a central bottleneck of information processing that severely limits our ability to multitask.

Motor limitation in dual-task processing under ballistic movement conditions

The standard bottleneck model of the psychological refractory period (PRP) assumes that the selection of the second response is postponed until the first response has been selected. Accordingly, dual-task interference is attributed to a single central-processing bottleneck involving decision and response selection, but not the execution of the response itself. In order to critically examine the assumption that response execution is not part of this bottleneck, we systematically manipulated the temporal demand for executing the first response in a classical PRP paradigm. Contrary to the assumption of the standard bottleneck model, this manipulation affected the reaction time for Task 2. Specifically, reaction time for Task 2 increased with execution time for Task 1. This carryover effect from Task 1 to Task 2 provides evidence for the notion that response execution can be part of the processing bottleneck.

On the locus of dual-task interference: Is there a bottleneck at the stimulus classification stage?

Recent studies have provided evidence that dual-task interference is typically caused by a single-channel bottleneck, but the processing locus of the bottleneck has yet to be pinned down. A bottleneck locus at the response-selection stage is widely advocated, but an earlier locus would be consistent with most previous evidence. Four new experiments used the "locus of slack" method to investigate whether the stages postponed by the central bottleneck include stimulus classification, a very late stage of perceptual processing. The experiments varied stimulus classification difficulty for two different analogueue perceptual judgements. Experiment 1 found only modest absorption into slack for the difficulty of a spatial position judgement. Experiments 2-4 found virtually no absorption into slack for the difficulty of a box-width judgement. These results support a bottleneck locus beginning at or before the stage of stimulus classification and hence prior to the stage of response selection. Other evidence, however, leaves no doubt that response selection is also subject to bottleneck postponement. Two architectures are discussed that can account parsimoniously for both old and new results. One posits a single bottleneck resulting from a unified CPU-like central processor; the other posits multiple bottlenecks resulting from multiple processors accomplishing different substages of central processing.

Regarding time-sharing with convergent operations

This study contrasts the structural bottleneck and the resource view of attentional limits in time-sharing performance. The research incorporated features of the psychological refractory period (PRP) and the relative priority paradigm designed to maximize joint performance. A main distinction between the two attention views was their prediction on the extent that graded performance tradeoff was possible with graded priority changes. Detailed analysis of the performance and time-sharing strategies called into question the conclusions based exclusively on the PRP paradigm.

Degrees of freedom and motor planning in purposive movement

This paper presents empirical evidence suggesting that healthy humans can perform a two degree of freedom visuo-motor pursuit tracking task with the same response time delay as a one degree of freedom task. In contrast, the time delay of the response is influenced markedly by the nature of the motor synergy required to produce it. We suggest a conceptual account of this evidence based on adaptive model theory, which combines theories of intermittency from psychology and adaptive optimal control from engineering. The intermittent response planning stage has a fixed period. It possesses multiple optimal trajectory generators such that multiple degrees of freedom can be planned concurrently, without requiring an increase in the planning period. In tasks which require unfamiliar motor synergies, or are deemed to be incompatible, internal adaptive models representing movement dynamics are inaccurate. This means that the actual response which is produced will deviate from the one which is planned. For a given target-response discrepancy, corrective response trajectories of longer duration are planned, consistent with the principle of speed-accuracy trade-off. Compared to familiar or compatible tasks, this results in a longer response time delay and reduced accuracy. From the standpoint of the intermittency approach, the findings of this study help make possible a more integral and predictive account of purposive action.

Response-specific sources of dual-task interference in human pre-motor cortex

It is difficult to perform two tasks at the same time. Such performance limitations are exemplified by the psychological refractory period (PRP): when participants make distinct motor responses to two stimuli presented in rapid succession, the response to the second stimulus is increasingly slowed as the time interval between the two stimuli is decreased. This impairment is thought to reflect a central limitation in selecting the appropriate response to each stimulus, but not in perceptually encoding the stimuli. In the present study, it was sought to determine which brain regions are specifically involved in response selection under dual-task conditions by contrasting fMRI brain activity measured from a response selection manipulation that increased dual-task costs, with brain activity measured from an equally demanding manipulation that affected perceptual visibility. While a number of parieto-frontal areas involved in response selection were activated by both dual-task manipulations, the dorsal pre-motor cortex, and to a lesser extent the inferior frontal cortex, were specifically engaged by the response selection manipulation. These results suggest that the pre-motor cortex is an important neural locus of response selection limitation under dual-task situations.

Increased Control Demand Results in Serial Processing: Evidence From Dual-Task Performance

Increased demands on cognitive control trigger changes in processing mode. One such modulation involves a shift from parallel to serial processing. This study assessed the role of control demand in determining whether dual-task processing is performed serially or in parallel. We used two critical indices, based on the response-selection bottleneck model, to show that response selection was serial when a task switch was involved, but partly parallel when the simultaneous performance of the tasks did not involve task switching.

Can practice overcome age-related differences in the psychological refractory period effect?

Can dual-task practice remove age-related differences in the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect? To answer this question, younger and older individuals practiced 7 blocks of a PRP design, in which Task 1 (T1) required a vocal response to an auditory stimulus and Task 2 (T2) required a manual response to a visual stimulus (Experiment 1). The results showed that practice did not reduce, but rather increased, age-related differences in PRP interference. Using the trained individuals, the introduction of a less complex new T1 (Experiment 2) or a less complex new T2 (Experiment 3) with the task previously practiced reduced the PRP interference but only in older adults. The authors propose that older adults suffer from a large task-switch cost that is more sensitive to task complexity than to the amount of practice.

How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening?

The present study assessed three hypotheses of how practice reduces dual-task interference: Practice teaches participants to efficiently integrate performance of a task pair; practice promotes automatization of individual tasks, allowing the central bottleneck to be bypassed; practice leaves the bottleneck intact but shorter in duration. These hypotheses were tested in two transfer-of-training experiments. Participants received one of three training types (Task 1 only, or Task 2 only, or dual-task), followed by dual-task test sessions. Practice effects in Experiment 1 (Task 1: auditory-vocal; Task 2: visual-manual) were fully explained by the intact bottleneck hypothesis, without task integration or automatization. This hypothesis also accounted well for the majority of participants when the task order was reversed (Experiment 2). In this case, however, there were multiple indicators that several participants had succeeded in eliminating the bottleneck by automatizing one or both tasks. Neither experiment provided any evidence that practice promotes efficient task integration.

Time pressure effects on information processing in overlapping tasks: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential

Information processing is impaired when two tasks are performed concurrently. The interference between the tasks is commonly attributed to structural bottlenecks or strategic scheduling of information processing. The present experiment investigated the effects of time pressure for the second of two responses on information processing in overlapping tasks by recording the lateralized readiness potential (LRP). Time pressure shortened the latency of the second response by diminishing the time devoted to motoric processing. In addition, task interference decreased under time pressure, which is probably due to the relatively early availability of the central bottleneck stage rather than to increased overlap of central stages. The LRP also provided direct evidence for an additional bottleneck following response selection, possibly due to supramodal refractoriness of response initiation.

Effect of Preparation on Dual-Task Performance in Postural Control

The authors applied an overlapping-task design to study the interaction between postural control and cognitive task processes in young (n = 10) and older (n = 10) adults. A rapid destabilizing floor translation was followed at specific time intervals by a simple auditory reaction time (RT) task. The translations were preceded by either an informational cue or no cue. Interference between postural task demands and the RT task was found only in the first 50 ms. Cueing also had an effect on both the onset of the postural recovery response and RT performance. The results suggest (a) only a brief interference between postural and cognitive processing demands in relatively easy tasks, (b) competition for a common central mechanism, possibly a response-selection mechanism, and (c) no differential impact of aging on that interaction.

Selection and consolidation of objects and actions

Response selection bottleneck models attribute performance costs under dual-task conditions to the human inability to select more than one response at a time. Consistent with this claim Pashler (1991) found that carrying out a speeded manual choice reaction time (RT) task does not impair the unspeeded report of a cued visual target from a masked display. In contrast, Jolicoeur and Dell'Acqua (1999, Experiment 2) observed pronounced interference between a speeded manual choice RT task and the unspeeded report of a small number of visually presented letters, a finding they attributed to resource sharing between response selection and stimulus consolidation. We demonstrate that comparable costs are obtained with the same task combination used by Pashler (1991) if only task order is reversed-a manipulation that is likely to increase the necessity of consolidating the target stimulus into working memory. We also found that these costs are not diminished if the location of the target to be reported is cued in advance (reducing demands on spatial focusing) and that they do not vary with the number of target features to be reported. These findings support a consolidation account of costs in dual-task performance.