Hierarchical task organization in dual tasks: evidence for higher level task representations

Psychological Research

Volumn 82, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 759-770

  Hirsch, Patricia ^a   Nolden, Sophie ^a   Philipp, Andrea M ^a   Koch, Iring ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Dual tasks processing; Hierarchical higher level tasks; Psychological refractory period; Task pairs

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; REACTION TIME; REPETITION PRIMING; YOUNG ADULT;

ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MULTITASKING BEHAVIOR; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REPETITION PRIMING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85014913140     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-017-0851-0     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Conscious and nonconscious information processing: Attention and performance XV. (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Altmann, E. M. (2006). Task switching is not cue switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 1016–1022. doi:10.3758/BF03213918.
3. Arrington, C. M., Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing paradigm: Are there true task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 484–502. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.484.
4. De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965–980. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.19.5.965.
5. De Jong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48 A, 2–25. doi:10.1080/14640749508401372.
6. Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). Predicting high levels of multitasking reduces between-tasks interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1482–1487. doi:10.1037/xhp0000157.
7. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). The influence of overlapping response sets on task inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 35, 603–609. doi:10.3758/BF03193298.
8. Hahn, S., Andersen, G. J., & Kramer, A. F. (2003). Multidimensional set switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 503–509. doi:10.3758/BF03196513.
9. Heuer, H. (1991). Motor constraints in dual-task performance. In D. L. Damos (Ed.), Multiple task performance (pp. 173–204). London: Taylor & Francis.
10. Hirsch, P., Nolden, S., & Koch, I. (2017). Higher-order cognitive control in dual-tasks: Evidence from task-pair switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
11. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368–1384. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0100-y.
12. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 494–500. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007.
13. Hübner, R., Futterer, T., & Steinhauser, M. (2001). On attentional control as a source of residual shift costs: Evidence from two-component task shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 640–653. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.27.3.640.
14. Jost, K., Mayr, U., & Rösler, F. (2008). Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 74–84. doi:10.3758/CABN.8.1.74.
15. Keller, P. E., & Koch, I. (2006). Exogenous and endogenous response priming with auditory stimuli. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 269–276. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0061-9.
16. Keller, P. E., & Koch, I. (2008). Action planning in sequential skills: Relations to music performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 275–291. doi:10.1080/17470210601160864.
17. Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. doi:10.1037/a0019842.
18. Kleinsorge, T. (2004). Hierarchical switching with two types of judgment and two stimulus dimensions. Experimental Psychology, 51, 145–149. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.51.2.145.
19. Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 62, 300–312. doi:10.1007/s004260050060.
20. Kleinsorge, T., Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (2001). Task-set reconfiguration with binary and three-valued task dimensions. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 65, 192–201. doi:10.1007/s004260000051.
21. Kleinsorge, T., Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (2004). Assembling a task space: Global determination of local shift costs. Psychological Research, 68, 31–40. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0134-9.
22. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.
23. Lien, M. C., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Task switching in a hierarchical task structure: Evidence for the fragility of the task repetition benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 697–713. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.697.
24. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492.
25. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 556–574. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.556.
26. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2006). Dual route for subtask order control: Evidence from the psychological refractory paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 720–744. doi:10.1080/02724980543000060.
27. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1, 4–26. doi:10.10371/0096-3445.129.1.4.
28. Miller, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response type on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 70, 484–493. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0011-9.
29. Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493.
30. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64.
31. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193–251. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0767.
32. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 358–377. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220.
33. Philipp, A., & Koch, I. (2010). The integration of task-set components into cognitive task representations. Psychologica Belgica, 50, 383–411. doi:10.5334/pb-50-3-4-383.
34. Rangelov, D., Töllner, T., Müller, H. J., & Zehetleitner, M. (2013). What are task-sets: A single, integrated representation or a collection of multiple control representations? Frontierts in Human Neuroscience. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00524.
35. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.
36. Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.004.
37. Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Hierarchical control of cognitive processes: Switching tasks in sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 623–640. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.623.
38. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566–582. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.3.566.
39. Szameitat, A. J., Lepsien, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Sterr, A., & Schubert, T. (2006). Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: An event-related fMRI study. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 70, 541–552. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0015-5.
40. Szameitat, A. J., Schubert, T., Müller, K., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1184–1199. doi:10.1162/089892902760807195.
41. Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 75–121. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.06.004.
42. Vandierendonck, A., Christiaens, E., & Liefooghe, B. (2008). On the representation of taks information in task switching: Evidence from task and dimension switching. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1248–1261. doi:10.3758/MC.36.7.1248.
43. Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance – A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–19. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x.