Open Access
Learning of across- and within-task contingencies modulates partial-repetition costs in dual-tasking
Author(s) -
Lasse Pelzer,
Christoph Naefgen,
Robert Gaschler,
Hilde Haider
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
psychological research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.117
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1430-2772
pISSN - 0340-0727
DOI - 10.1007/s00426-021-01518-1
Subject(s) - stimulus (psychology) , task (project management) , cognitive psychology , human multitasking , set (abstract data type) , psychology , computer science , speech recognition , management , economics , programming language
Dual-task costs might result from confusions on the task-set level as both tasks are not represented as distinct task-sets, but rather being integrated into a single task-set. This suggests that events in the two tasks are stored and retrieved together as an integrated memory episode. In a series of three experiments, we tested for such integrated task processing and whether it can be modulated by regularities between the stimuli of the two tasks (across-task contingencies) or by sequential regularities within one of the tasks (within-task contingencies). Building on the experimental approach of feature binding in action control, we tested whether the participants in a dual-tasking experiment will show partial-repetition costs: they should be slower when only the stimulus in one of the two tasks is repeated from Trial n - 1 to Trial n than when the stimuli in both tasks repeat. In all three experiments, the participants processed a visual-manual and an auditory-vocal tone-discrimination task which were always presented concurrently. In Experiment 1, we show that retrieval of Trial n - 1 episodes is stable across practice if the stimulus material is drawn randomly. Across-task contingencies (Experiment 2) and sequential regularities within a task (Experiment 3) can compete with n - 1-based retrieval leading to a reduction of partial-repetition costs with practice. Overall the results suggest that participants do not separate the processing of the two tasks, yet, within-task contingencies might reduce integrated task processing.