Victor Mittelstädt, Ian Grant Mackenzie, Sebastian Heins, Jeff Miller
{"title":"新型多任务范式中任务处理和选择的时间动态。","authors":"Victor Mittelstädt, Ian Grant Mackenzie, Sebastian Heins, Jeff Miller","doi":"10.1007/s00426-024-01971-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated the temporal dynamics of task performance and voluntary task choice within a multitasking paradigm in which the task-related processing outcomes themselves determined the to-be-performed task. In the novel forced-no-go trials, the stimulus for one task required an overt response, but the stimulus for the other task was associated with a no-go response. Task performance results showed that participants often processed the no-go task's stimulus before switching to the go-task. Dual-task interference effects and switch costs indicated various forms of multitasking interference, with their underlying causes appearing to overlap, as engagement in parallel processing seemed to be limited by switch-related reconfiguration processes. Intermixing free-choice trials, where both stimuli were associated with overt responses, revealed costs associated with switching between processing modes, providing new evidence that the distinctions between free and forced task goals stem from differences in their internal representations rather than alterations in processing due to different presentations in the environment. Task choice results align with this perspective, demonstrating a preference for repeating a free- over a forced-choice task. Furthermore, these free-choice results illuminate the interplay of cognitive (task-repetition bias) and environmental constraints (first-task bias) in shaping task choices: It appears that task-specific information increases goal activations for both task goals concurrently, with participants favoring central processing of the second- over the first-presented task to optimize their behavior when shorter central processing is required (task repetition). Overall, this study offers new insights into the dynamics of task processing and choice in environments requiring the balance of multiple tasks.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":" ","pages":"1737-1757"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11281993/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The temporal dynamics of task processing and choice in a novel multitasking paradigm.\",\"authors\":\"Victor Mittelstädt, Ian Grant Mackenzie, Sebastian Heins, Jeff Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00426-024-01971-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study investigated the temporal dynamics of task performance and voluntary task choice within a multitasking paradigm in which the task-related processing outcomes themselves determined the to-be-performed task. In the novel forced-no-go trials, the stimulus for one task required an overt response, but the stimulus for the other task was associated with a no-go response. Task performance results showed that participants often processed the no-go task's stimulus before switching to the go-task. Dual-task interference effects and switch costs indicated various forms of multitasking interference, with their underlying causes appearing to overlap, as engagement in parallel processing seemed to be limited by switch-related reconfiguration processes. Intermixing free-choice trials, where both stimuli were associated with overt responses, revealed costs associated with switching between processing modes, providing new evidence that the distinctions between free and forced task goals stem from differences in their internal representations rather than alterations in processing due to different presentations in the environment. Task choice results align with this perspective, demonstrating a preference for repeating a free- over a forced-choice task. Furthermore, these free-choice results illuminate the interplay of cognitive (task-repetition bias) and environmental constraints (first-task bias) in shaping task choices: It appears that task-specific information increases goal activations for both task goals concurrently, with participants favoring central processing of the second- over the first-presented task to optimize their behavior when shorter central processing is required (task repetition). Overall, this study offers new insights into the dynamics of task processing and choice in environments requiring the balance of multiple tasks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1737-1757\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11281993/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01971-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01971-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
The temporal dynamics of task processing and choice in a novel multitasking paradigm.
This study investigated the temporal dynamics of task performance and voluntary task choice within a multitasking paradigm in which the task-related processing outcomes themselves determined the to-be-performed task. In the novel forced-no-go trials, the stimulus for one task required an overt response, but the stimulus for the other task was associated with a no-go response. Task performance results showed that participants often processed the no-go task's stimulus before switching to the go-task. Dual-task interference effects and switch costs indicated various forms of multitasking interference, with their underlying causes appearing to overlap, as engagement in parallel processing seemed to be limited by switch-related reconfiguration processes. Intermixing free-choice trials, where both stimuli were associated with overt responses, revealed costs associated with switching between processing modes, providing new evidence that the distinctions between free and forced task goals stem from differences in their internal representations rather than alterations in processing due to different presentations in the environment. Task choice results align with this perspective, demonstrating a preference for repeating a free- over a forced-choice task. Furthermore, these free-choice results illuminate the interplay of cognitive (task-repetition bias) and environmental constraints (first-task bias) in shaping task choices: It appears that task-specific information increases goal activations for both task goals concurrently, with participants favoring central processing of the second- over the first-presented task to optimize their behavior when shorter central processing is required (task repetition). Overall, this study offers new insights into the dynamics of task processing and choice in environments requiring the balance of multiple tasks.
期刊介绍:
Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.