The working memory costs of a central attentional bottleneck in multitasking

When two (or more) tasks, each requiring a rapid response, are performed at the same time then serial processing may occur at certain processing stages, such as the response selection. There is accumulating evidence that such serial processing involves additional control processes, such as inhibition, switching, and scheduling (termed the active scheduling account). The present study tested whether the existence of serial processing in multitasking leads to a requirement for processes that coordinate processing in this way (active scheduling account) and, furthermore, whether such control processes are linked to the executive functions (EF) of working memory (WM). To test this question, we merged the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm with a WM task, creating a complex WM span task. Participants were presented with a sequence of letters to remember, followed by a processing block in which they had to perform either a single task or a dual task, and finally were asked to recall the letters. Results showed that WM performance, i.e. the amount of letters recalled in the correct order, decreased when performing a dual task as compared to performing a single task during the retention interval. Two further experiments supported this finding using manipulations of the dual task difficulty. We conclude that the existence of serial processing in multitasking demands additional control processes (active scheduling) and that these processes are strongly linked to the executive functions of working memory.

Two sources of task prioritization: The interplay of effector-based and task order-based capacity allocation in the PRP paradigm

When processing of two tasks overlaps, performance is known to suffer. In the well-established psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, tasks are triggered by two stimuli with a short temporal delay (stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA), thereby allowing control of the degree of task overlap. A decrease of the SOA reliably yields longer RTs of the task associated with the second stimulus (Task 2) while performance in the other task (Task 1) remains largely unaffected. This Task 2-specific SOA effect is usually interpreted in terms of central capacity limitations. Particularly, it has been assumed that response selection in Task 2 is delayed due to the allocation of less capacity until this process has been completed in Task 1. Recently, another important factor determining task prioritization has been proposed—namely, the particular effector systems associated with tasks. Here, we study both sources of task prioritization simultaneously by systematically combining three different effector systems (pairwise combinations of oculomotor, vocal, and manual responses) in the PRP paradigm. Specifically, we asked whether task order-based task prioritization (SOA effect) is modulated as a function of Task 2 effector system. The results indicate a modulation of SOA effects when the same (oculomotor) Task 1 is combined with a vocal versus a manual Task 2. This is incompatible with the assumption that SOA effects are solely determined by Task 1 response selection duration. Instead, they support the view that dual-task processing bottlenecks are resolved by establishing a capacity allocation scheme fed by multiple input factors, including attentional weights associated with particular effector systems.

Attentional modulation of orthographic neighborhood effects during reading: Evidence from event-related brain potentials in a psychological refractory period paradigm

It is often assumed that word reading proceeds automatically. Here, we tested this assumption by recording event-related potentials during a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, requiring lexical decisions about written words. Specifically, we selected words differing in their orthographic neighborhood size – the number of words that can be obtained from a target by exchanging a single letter – and investigated how influences of this variable depend on the availability of central attention. As expected, when attentional resources for lexical decisions were unconstrained, words with many orthographic neighbors elicited larger N400 amplitudes than those with few neighbors. However, under conditions of high temporal overlap with a high priority primary task, the N400 effect disappeared. This finding indicates strong attentional influences on the incidental processing of orthographic neighbors during word reading, providing novel evidence against the automaticity of processes involved in word reading. Furthermore, in conjunction with the observation of an underadditive interaction between stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) and orthographic neighborhood size in lexical decision performance, commonly taken to indicate automaticity, our results raise issues concerning the standard logic of cognitive slack in the PRP paradigm.