Sequential Adjustments of Task-pair Control in Dual-task Contexts: Examining the Role of Repetition Priming Effects at the Level of Task-pair Sets and Abstract Control States

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2025 Feb 18

PMID 39966315

Authors

Patricia Hirsch

Iring Koch

Tilo Strobach

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In dual-task situations, two stimuli are presented in rapid succession, requiring participants to perform two tasks simultaneously. Prior studies suggested that when two tasks are performed simultaneously, information about the identity of the two tasks is represented in a joint cognitive representation, referred to as the task-pair set. This evidence comes from studies showing that switching between different task pairs results in performance costs, called task-pair switch costs (i.e., performance in task-pair switches vs. repetitions). In the present study, we focused on the adjustive characteristics of task-pair switching by investigating whether task-pair switch costs are sequentially modulated by the previous experience with a task-pair switch (vs. repetition). First, we reanalyzed the data of four published experiments and observed a reduction of task-pair switch costs after a task-pair switch trial relative to after a task-pair repetition trial. Second, we confirmed this novel finding in a new experiment. The new experiment also showed that performance in a current task-pair repetition was better after a task-pair repetition than after a task-pair switch, whereas the performance in a current task-pair switch was not modulated by the task-pair sequence in the previous trial. These findings suggest that automatic bottom-up repetition priming at the level of task-pair sets, rather than repetition priming at the level of abstract control states, contributes to the sequential adjustment of task-pair switch costs.

References

Berger A, Fischer R, Dreisbach G . It's more than just conflict: The functional role of congruency in the sequential control adaptation. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019; 197:64-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.04.016. View

Blais C, Stefanidi A, Brewer G . The Gratton effect remains after controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions. Front Psychol. 2014; 5:1207. PMC: 4208397. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01207. View

Botvinick M, Braver T, Barch D, Carter C, Cohen J . Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(3):624-52. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624. View

Braem S, Bugg J, Schmidt J, Crump M, Weissman D, Notebaert W . Measuring Adaptive Control in Conflict Tasks. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019; 23(9):769-783. PMC: 6699878. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002. View

Dignath D, Kiesel A . Further Evidence for the Binding and Retrieval of Control-States From the Flanker Task. Exp Psychol. 2021; 68(5):264-273. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000529. View

Dreisbach G, Haider H, Kluwe R . Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: evidence from the use of probability cues. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002; 28(3):468-83. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.468. View

Durst M, Janczyk M . Two types of backward crosstalk: Sequential modulations and evidence from the diffusion model. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019; 193:132-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.013. View

Egner T . Principles of cognitive control over task focus and task switching. Nat Rev Psychol. 2024; 2(11):702-714. PMC: 11409542. DOI: 10.1038/s44159-023-00234-4. View

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A . G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(2):175-91. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193146. View

10.

Fischer R, Plessow F . Efficient multitasking: parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:1366. PMC: 4561751. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01366. View

11.

Fischer R, Plessow F, Kunde W, Kiesel A . Trial-to-trial modulations of the Simon effect in conditions of attentional limitations: Evidence from dual tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010; 36(6):1576-94. DOI: 10.1037/a0019326. View

12.

FITTS P, DEININGER R . S-R compatibility: correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. J Exp Psychol. 1954; 48(6):483-92. DOI: 10.1037/h0054967. View

13.

Gratton G, Coles M, Donchin E . Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992; 121(4):480-506. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.121.4.480. View

14.

Hirsch P, Schwarzkopp T, Declerck M, Reese S, Koch I . Age-related differences in task switching and task preparation: Exploring the role of task-set competition. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2016; 170:66-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.06.008. View

15.

Hirsch P, Nolden S, Koch I . Higher-order cognitive control in dual tasks: Evidence from task-pair switching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017; 43(3):569-580. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000309. View

16.

Hirsch P, Nolden S, Declerck M, Koch I . Common Cognitive Control Processes Underlying Performance in Task-Switching and Dual-Task Contexts. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2020; 14(3):62-74. PMC: 7171593. DOI: 10.5709/acp-0239-y. View

17.

Hirsch P, Nolden S, Philipp A, Koch I . Hierarchical task organization in dual tasks: evidence for higher level task representations. Psychol Res. 2017; 82(4):759-770. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-017-0851-0. View

18.

Hommel B . Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999; 24(5):1368-84. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.5.1368. View

19.

Janczyk M . Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015; 42(5):631-47. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000170. View

20.

Jentzsch I, Leuthold H, Ulrich R . Decomposing sources of response slowing in the PRP paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007; 33(3):610-26. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.610. View