A fundamental limitation in the type of information that can be retained in working memory is identified in this theoretical / review article. The analysis is based on studies of skilled motor performance that were not initially conceived in terms of working memory. Findings from a long history of experimentation involving reaction time (RT) prior to making a brief motor response indicate that although the parameters representing the goal to be achieved by the response can be retained in working memory, the control code that implements timing of action components cannot. This lack of working memory requires that the \"timing code\" must be compiled immediately prior to the moment that it is to be utilized; it is not possible to be fully ready to respond earlier. This compiling process increases RT and may also underlie both the psychological refractory period effect and the difficulty of generating concurrent motor actions with independent timing. These conclusions extend, but do not conflict with, other models of working memory.

This study investigated whether the interference between two tasks in dual-task processing stems from bottleneck limitations or insufficient cognitive resources due to resource sharing. Experiment 1 used tone discrimination as Task 1 and word or pseudoword classification as Task 2 to evaluate the effect of automatic versus controlled processing on dual-task interference under different SOA conditions. Experiment 2 reversed the task order. The results showed that dual-task interference persisted regardless of task type or order. Neither experiment found evidence that automatic tasks could eliminate interference. This suggests that resource limitations, rather than bottlenecks, may better explain dual-task costs. Specifically, when tasks compete for limited resources, the processing efficiency of both tasks is significantly reduced. Future research should explore how cognitive resources are dynamically allocated between tasks to better account for dual-task interference effects.

The extraction and maintenance of second task information was explored in four dual task experiments. A variant of the psychological refractory period procedure was used with the first task, a speeded choice reaction to a tone and the second task, the unspeeded recall of letter triplets. Prior research had shown that recall accuracy dropped as the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) decreased and task overlap increased. This could be due to interference with extracting perceptual information or to loss of the information while awaiting central resources. All four experiments showed evidence of interference, with the accuracy of recall for the first letter recalled relatively unaffected by SOA but with accuracy for later letters dropping as SOA decreased. Two of the experiments showed evidence for loss of second task information, with accuracy lower on trials with longer first task reaction times. The two other experiments showed loss of information when either the response complexity of Task 1 or the perceptual encoding difficulty was increased, increasing the processing time. The observed interference was attributed to slowed extraction of perceptual information. The observed loss was consistent with the encoded information being held in a fragile temporary store, susceptible to loss until consolidated into short-term memory. The evidence showed that the interference and the loss were independent processes.

Our actions cause manifold environmental changes. Monitoring these action effects serves at least two vital functions: While the validation of currently relevant effects assesses goal-achievement, screening for currently irrelevant effects accumulates knowledge about potential action-effect relationships. However, monitoring the perceptual consequences of our actions presumably impairs performance in concurrent tasks. Here, we investigated how effect relevance modulates monitoring costs by manipulating instructions in three dual-task experiments. We found performance decreases not only after validation of goal-relevant action effects but to a smaller extent also after screening of goal-irrelevant action effects. These results suggest that effect monitoring is a rather fundamental limitation of dual tasking.

When it comes to simultaneous processing of two tasks, information processing capacity is usually below par and not desirable. Therefore, this preliminary study aimed to investigate the effect of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) on performing dual tasks. Twenty-six students (average age 25.2 ± 2.43 years) were selected and then randomly divided into experimental and sham groups. All of the participants conducted the Stroop effect test in a dual task situation before and after the tDCS. This test included two intervals between the stimuli of 100 and 900 ms. The results of mixed-ANOVA showed that the average second reaction time of the experimental stimulated group was reduced (in both dual tasks with congruent and incongruent stimuli) significantly after the tDCS. Therefore, it can be stated that the tDCS of the DLPFC increases the information processing speed and the capacity of attention and, as a result, decreases the effect of the psychological refractory period.

A frequent observation in dual-task experiments is that performance in Task 1 is influenced by conceptual or spatial overlap with features of Task 2. Such compatibility-based backward crosstalk effects (BCEs) can occur when overlap exists between the responses of two tasks-the R1-R2 BCE-or between the stimulus in Task 1 and the response in Task 2-the S1-R2 BCE. The present study investigated whether the S1-R2 BCE has a perceptual locus, and by implication, whether the two BCEs have a common processing locus or different ones. To this end, we applied the additive factors logic and manipulated the duration of the Task 1 perceptual stage. The results argue against a perceptual locus for both BCEs. As a possible explanation, we suggest that the R1-R2 BCE and the S1-R2 BCE have their locus within a capacity-limited central stage, but that they arise from different processes within this stage. The R1-R2 BCE influences Task 1 response selection, whereas the S1-R2 BCE influences Task 1 stimulus classification. A plausible though post-hoc model is presented within the Discussion.

When two tasks, Task 1 and Task 2, are conducted in close temporal proximity and a separate speeded response is required for each target (T1 and T2), T2 report performance decreases as a function of its temporal proximity to T1. This so-called psychological refractory period (PRP) effect on T2 processing is largely assumed to reflect interference from T1 response selection on T2 response selection. However, interference on early perceptual processing of T2 has been observed in a modified paradigm, which required changes in visual-spatial attention, sensory modality, task modality, and response modality across targets. The goal of the present study was to investigate the possibility of early perceptual interference by systematically and iteratively removing each of these possible non perceptual confounds, in a series of four experiments. To assess T2 visual memory consolidation success, T2 was presented for a varying duration and immediately masked. T2 report accuracy, which was taken as a measure of perceptual-encoding or consolidation-success, decreased across all experimental control conditions as T1-T2 onset proximity increased. We argue that our results, in light of previous studies, show that central processing of a first target, responsible for the classical PRP effect, also interferes with early perceptual processing of a second target. We end with a discussion of broader implications for psychological refractory period and attentional blink effects.

Central and auditory attention are limited in capacity. In dual-tasks, central attention is required to select the appropriate response, but because central attention is limited in capacity, response selection can only be carried out for one task at a time. In auditory search tasks, search time to detect the target sound increases with the number of distractor sounds added to the auditory scene (set sizes), indicating that auditory attention is limited in capacity. Here, we investigated whether central and auditory attention relied on common or distinct capacity limitations using a dual-task paradigm. In two experiments, participants completed a visual choice discrimination task (task 1) together with an auditory search task (task 2), and the two tasks were separated by an experimentally modulated stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). Analysing auditory search time as a function of SOA and set sizes (locus-of-slack method) revealed that the auditory search process in task 2 was performed after response selection in a visual two-choice discrimination task 1 (Experiment 1), but concurrently with response selection in a visual four-choice discrimination task 1 (Experiment 2). Hence, although response selection in the visual four-choice discrimination task demanded more central attention as compared with response selection in the two-choice discrimination task, the auditory search process was performed in parallel. Distribution analyses of inter-response time further indicated that parallel processing of response selection and auditory search was not influenced by response grouping. Taken together, the two experiments provided evidence that central and auditory attention relied on distinct capacity limitations.

Monitoring the perceptual effects of body movements is supposed to be a capacity-limited process that can interfere with processing of a concurrent task. Here we studied the contribution of feature binding to such effect monitoring interference. In three experiments, we varied the possibility of feature overlap between responses and effects in a primary task and responses in a secondary task. We show that responses in a secondary task are delayed when they partially, rather than completely, alternate or repeat features of responses/effects of a primary task. Yet, these partial feature repetition/alternation costs are small, and they occur on top of other factors that lengthen the critical effect monitoring process, such as the spatial compatibility of responses and effects in the primary task. The results thus show that feature binding contributes to, but cannot fully account for, delays in a secondary task caused by monitoring effects of a primary task.

People\'s parallel-processing ability is limited, as demonstrated by the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect: The reaction time to the second stimulus (RT2) increases as the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between two stimuli decreases. Most theoretical models of PRP are independent of modalities. Previous research on PRP mainly focused on vision and audition as input modalities; tactile stimuli have not been fully explored. Research using other paradigms and involving tactile stimuli, however, found that dual-task performance depended on input modalities. This study explored PRP with all the combinations of input modalities. Thirty participants judged the magnitude (small or large) of two stimuli presented in different modalities with an SOA of 75-1,200 ms. PRP effect was observed, i.e., RT2 increased with a decreasing SOA, in all the modalities. Only in the auditory-tactile condition did the accuracy of Task 2 decrease with a decreasing SOA. In the auditory-tactile and tactile-visual conditions, RT to the first stimulus also increased with a decreasing SOA. Current models could only explain part of the results, and modality characteristics help to explain the overall data pattern better. Limitations and directions for future studies regarding reaction time, task difficulty, and response modalities are discussed.