Additive effects of prior knowledge and predictive visual information in improving continuous tracking performance

Visual information and prior knowledge represent two different sources of predictability for tasks which each have been reported to have a beneficial effect on dual-task performance. What if the two were combined? Adding multiple sources of predictability might, on the one hand, lead to additive, beneficial effects on dual-tasking. On the other hand, it is conceivable that multiple sources of predictability do not increase dual-task performance further, as they complicate performance due to having to process information from multiple sources. In this study, we combined two sources of predictability, predictive visual information and prior knowledge (implicit learning and explicit learning) in a dual-task setup. 22 participants performed a continuous tracking task together with an auditory reaction time task over three days. The middle segment of the tracking task was repeating to promote motor learning, but only half of the participants was informed about this. After the practice blocks (day 3), we provided participants with predictive visual information about the tracking path to test whether visual information would add to beneficial effects of prior knowledge (additive effects of predictability). Results show that both predictive visual information and prior knowledge improved dual-task performance, presented simultaneously or in absence of each other. These results show that processing of information relevant for enhancement of task performance is unhindered by dual-task demands

Inter-individual Differences in Switching Strategies

part of the DFG SPP 1772 Human performance under multiple cognitive task requirements: From basic mechanisms to optimized task schedulin

Multitasking as a choice: a perspective

Item does not contain fulltextPerformance decrements in multitasking have been explained by limitations in cognitive capacity, either modelled as static structural bottlenecks or as the scarcity of overall cognitive resources that prevent humans, or at least restrict them, from processing two tasks at the same time. However, recent research has shown that individual differences, flexible resource allocation, and prioritization of tasks cannot be fully explained by these accounts. We argue that understanding human multitasking as a choice and examining multitasking performance from the perspective of judgment and decision-making (JDM), may complement current dual-task theories. We outline two prominent theories from the area of JDM, namely Simple Heuristics and the Decision Field Theory, and adapt these theories to multitasking research. Here, we explain how computational modelling techniques and decision-making parameters used in JDM may provide a benefit to understanding multitasking costs and argue that these techniques and parameters have the potential to predict multitasking behavior in general, and also individual differences in behavior. Finally, we present the one-reason choice metaphor to explain a flexible use of limited capacity as well as changes in serial and parallel task processing. Based on this newly combined approach, we outline a concrete interdisciplinary future research program that we think will help to further develop multitasking research.12 p

Individual Differences Fill the Uncharted Intersections Between Cognitive Structure, Flexibility, and Plasticity in Multitasking

Broeker L, Bruning J, Fandakova Y, et al. Individual Differences Fill the Uncharted Intersections Between Cognitive Structure, Flexibility, and Plasticity in Multitasking. Psychological Review. 2022.It has been recently suggested that research on human multitasking is best organized according to three research perspectives, which differ in their focus on cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity. Even though it is argued that the perspectives should be seen as complementary, there has not been a formal approach describing or explaining the intersections between the three perspectives. With this theoretical note, we would like to show that the explicit consideration of individual differences is one possible way to elaborate in more detail on how and why the perspectives complement each other. We will define structure, flexibility, and plasticity; describe what constitutes individual differences; will outline selected empirical examples; and raise possible future research questions helping to develop the research field