Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (2)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (2)
Dokumenttyp
- Dissertation (2) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Mehrfachtätigkeit (2) (entfernen)
Institut
Multitasking, defined as performing more than one task at a time, typically yields performance decrements, for instance, in processing speed and accuracy. These performance costs are often distributed asymmetrically among the involved tasks. Under suitable conditions, this can be interpreted as a marker for prioritization of one task – the one that suffers less – over the other. One source of such task prioritization is based on the use of different effector systems (e.g., oculomotor system, vocal tract, limbs) and their characteristics. The present work explores such effector system-based task prioritization by examining to which extent associated effector systems determine which task is processed with higher priority in multitasking situations. Thus, three different paradigms are used, namely the simultaneous (stimulus) onset paradigm, the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, and the task switching paradigm. These paradigms invoke situations in which two (in the present studies basic spatial decision) tasks are a) initiated at exactly the same time, b) initiated with a short varying temporal distance (but still temporally overlapping), or c) in which tasks alternate randomly (without temporal overlap). The results allow for three major conclusions: 1. The assumption of effector system-based task prioritization according to an ordinal pattern (oculomotor > pedal > vocal > manual, indicating decreasing prioritization) is supported by the observed data in the simultaneous onset paradigm. This data pattern cannot be explained by a rigid “first come, first served” task scheduling principle. 2. The data from the PRP paradigm confirmed the assumption of vocal-over-manual prioritization and showed that classic PRP effects (as a marker for task order-based prioritization) can be modulated by effector system characteristics. 3. The mere cognitive representation of task sets (that must be held active to switch between them) differing in effector systems without an actual temporal overlap in task processing, however, is not sufficient to elicit the same effector system prioritization phenomena observed for overlapping tasks. In summary, the insights obtained by the present work support the assumptions of parallel central task processing and resource sharing among tasks, as opposed to exclusively serial processing of central processing stages. Moreover, they indicate that effector systems are a crucial factor in multitasking and suggest an integration of corresponding weighting parameters in existing dual-task control frameworks.
Cross-Modal Action Control
(2016)
Nowadays, multitasking is ubiquitously discussed within many different scientific disciplines. The present work addressed multitasking from the perspective of cognitive behavioural sciences by investigating the role of conflict resolution processes that arise during the requirements of multiple-action control. More specifically, the present work focuses on cognitive mechanisms in the case of cross-modal action control, which involves the performance of two actions in different effector systems. One aim was to broaden the scope of action modalities typically considered in the literature by studying oculomotor responses (i.e. saccades) – an action modality that has been largely neglected in previous research – in combination with responses in other effector systems (i.e. manual and vocal responses). A further aim was to specify the mechanisms of crosstalk as an explanatory concept referring to the action content, which is particularly relevant since cross-modal actions usually differ regarding their response characteristics. The present work comprises four studies (each involving two or three experiments).
In Study A, cross-modal response compounds based on a single stimulus were studied with respect to the interplay of the presence of response alternatives and between-response compatibility (i.e. crosstalk potential). In three experiments, this study showed that crosstalk can be dissociated into a component that determines the amount of current conflict (i.e. online crosstalk) and a memory-based component that originates either from residual activation of previous action demands (retrospective crosstalk) or from preparation for future demands (prospective crosstalk).
Study B provided first evidence that oculomotor responses are subject to interference based on both structural and content-based origins. In three experiments, an overlapping tasks paradigm was employed in which the onsets between two stimuli that triggered oculomotor and manual responses were varied. Evidence for both serial and parallel processing of the two tasks was found. The results further indicated that based on the between-task compatibility participants shifted between these processing modes, i.e. to more parallel processing during compatible task demands and to more serial processing during incompatible task demands.
Study C examined processing priorities among effector systems and demonstrated in two experiments that the previously reported prioritisation scheme, in which the oculomotor system is prioritised over the vocal and manual effector system, can be replicated, but is also adjusted in its strength by the presence of response conflict. Specifically, processing priorities were shifted towards the response that already is involved in conflict resolution (in terms of stimulus-response compatibility), suggesting that processing priorities can be flexibly adapted to particular task demands.
Study D addressed response order control in dual tasks, an issue that has been widely neglected in previous research. In a comprehensive study of three experiments including several factors that are known to be relevant for dual-task interference mechanisms, it was shown that the final response order in a given trial is the result of a continuous adjustment process based on the interplay of several top-down factors, such as the anticipation of response characteristics, and bottom-up factors, such as stimulus order and between-task compatibility.
In summary, the present work advances the theoretical understanding of complex action control by providing a cross-modal action perspective, by proposing mechanisms for effector-system prioritisation and response order control, and by proposing a novel taxonomy of crosstalk as an overarching framework for interference mechanisms in multiple-response control.