Adjustment of cognitive control to the frequency of dual-task interference

References

• Abrahamse, E. L., Duthoo, W., Notebaert, W., & Risko, E. F. (2013). Attention modulation by proportion congruency: The asymmetrical list shifting effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1552–1562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botvinick, M., Braver, T., Barch, D., Carter, C., & Cohen, J. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, C. S., Macdonald, A. M., Botvinick, M., Ross, L. L., Stenger, V. A., Noll, D., & Cohen, J. D. (2000). Parsing executive processes: Strategic vs. Evaluative functions of the anterior cingulate cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(4), 1944–1948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 399–416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, R., & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking: Parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506. doi:10.1037/0096- 3445.121.4.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 43(3), 569–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsch, P., Nolden, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2017). Hierarchical task organization in dual tasks: Evidence for higher level task representations. Psychological Research, 82, 759–770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368–1384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janczyk, M. (2016). Sequential modulation of backward crosstalk and task-shielding in dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(5), 631–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132(1), 30–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R., Miura, T. K., & Colflesh, G. J. (2007). Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: A question of construct validity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 615–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kübler, S., Reimer, C. B., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2018). The impact of free-order and sequential-order instructions on task-order regulation in dual tasks. Psychological Research, 82(1), 40–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuratomi, K., & Yoshizaki, K. (2016). Flexible adjustments of visual selectivity in a flanker task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 462–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: Evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73(5), 707–726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehle, C., Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Serial or parallel processing in dual tasks: What is more effortful? Psychophysiology, 46(3), 502–509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(4), 1260–1280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lien, M. C., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (2006). Attentional limitations in doing two tasks at once: The search for exceptions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 89–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(2), 471–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, J., & Durst, M. (2014). “Just do it when you get a chance”: The effects of a background task on primary task performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(8), 2560–2574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 273–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittelstädt, V., & Miller, J. (2017). Separating limits on preparation versus online processing in multitasking paradigms: Evidence for resource models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), 89–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44(3), 193–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navon, D., & Miller, J. O. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olszanowski, M., Bajo, M. T., & Szmalec, A. (2015). A conflict monitoring account of the control mechanisms involved in dual-tasking. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(6), 704–714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orscheschek, F., Strobach, T., Schubert, T., & Rickard, T. (2018). Two retrievals from a single cue: A bottleneck persists across episodic and semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1005–1028. doi: 10.1177/1747021818776818
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R., & Bullmore, E. (2005). N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 25(1), 46–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieczykolan, A., & Huestegge, L. (2019). Action scheduling in multitasking: A multi-phase framework of response-order control. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-01660-w
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening? Psychological Research, 70(2), 125–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherbaum, S., Gottschalk, C., Dshemuchadse, M., & Fischer, R. (2015). Action dynamics in multitasking: The impact of additional task factors on the execution of the prioritized motor movement. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 615–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. R. (2014). Contingencies and attentional capture: The importance of matching stimulus informativeness in the item-specific proportion congruent task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. R., Lemercier, C., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Context-specific temporal learning with non-conflict stimuli: Proof-of-principle for a learning account of context-specific proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strobach, T., Schubert, T., Pashler, H., & Rickard, T. (2014). The specificity of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 42(4), 552–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres-Quesada, M., Funes, M. J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Dissociating proportion congruent and conflict adaptation effects in a Simon–stroop procedure. Acta Psychologica, 142(2), 203–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, R., & Baylis, G. C. (1998). Effects of increased response dominance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 13(2), 206–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Reed, B. (2015). Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar