@article{KuertenRaettigGutzeitetal.2023,
  author    = {K{\"u}rten, Jens and Raettig, Tim and Gutzeit, Julian and Huestegge, Lynn},
  title     = {Dual-action benefits: global (action-inherent) and local (transient) sources of action prepotency underlying inhibition failures in multiple action control},
  series = {Psychological Research},
  volume    = {87},
  journal   = {Psychological Research},
  number    = {2},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00426-022-01672-0},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-324893},
  pages     = {410-424},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Previous research has shown that the simultaneous execution of two actions (instead of only one) is not necessarily more difficult but can actually be easier (less error-prone), in particular when executing one action requires the simultaneous inhibition of another action. Corresponding inhibitory demands are particularly challenging when the to-be-inhibited action is highly prepotent (i.e., characterized by a strong urge to be executed). Here, we study a range of important potential sources of such prepotency. Building on a previously established paradigm to elicit dual-action benefits, participants responded to stimuli with single actions (either manual button press or saccade) or dual actions (button press and saccade). Crucially, we compared blocks in which these response demands were randomly intermixed (mixed blocks) with pure blocks involving only one type of response demand. The results highlight the impact of global (action-inherent) sources of action prepotency, as reflected in more pronounced inhibitory failures in saccade vs. manual control, but also more local (transient) sources of influence, as reflected in a greater probability of inhibition failures following trials that required the to-be-inhibited type of action. In addition, sequential analyses revealed that inhibitory control (including its failure) is exerted at the level of response modality representations, not at the level of fully specified response representations. In sum, the study highlights important preconditions and mechanisms underlying the observation of dual-action benefits.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{StrobachKuertenHuestegge2023,
  author    = {Strobach, Tilo and K{\"u}rten, Jens and Huestegge, Lynn},
  title     = {Benefits of repeated alternations - task-specific vs. task-general sequential adjustments of dual-task order control},
  series = {Acta Psychologica},
  volume    = {236},
  journal   = {Acta Psychologica},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103921},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-349868},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {An important cognitive requirement in multitasking is the decision of how multiple tasks should be temporally scheduled (task order control). Specifically, task order switches (vs. repetitions) yield performance costs (i.e., task-order switch costs), suggesting that task order scheduling is a vital part of configuring a task set. Recently, it has been shown that this process takes specific task-related characteristics into account: task order switches were easier when switching to a preferred (vs. non-preferred) task order. Here, we ask whether another determinant of task order control, namely the phenomenon that a task order switch in a previous trial facilitates a task order switch in a current trial (i.e., a sequential modulation of task order switch effect) also takes task-specific characteristics into account. Based on three experiments involving task order switches between a preferred (dominant oculomotor task prior to non-dominant manual/pedal task) and a non-preferred (vice versa) order, we replicated the finding that task order switching (in Trial N) is facilitated after a previous switch (vs. repetition in Trial N - 1) in task order. There was no substantial evidence in favor of a significant difference when switching to the preferred vs. non-preferred order and in the analyses of the dominant oculomotor task and the non-dominant manual task. This indicates different mechanisms underlying the control of immediate task order configuration (indexed by task order switch costs) and the sequential modulation of these costs based on the task order transition type in the previous trial.},
  language  = {en}
}