The DOI matches its Crossref record; 213 of the 213 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Common and distinct neural correlates of dual-tasking and task-switching: a meta-analytic review and a neuro-cognitive processing model of human multitasking
Open accessAbstract
Although there are well-known limitations of the human cognitive system in performing two tasks simultaneously (dual-tasking) or alternatingly (task-switching), the question for a common vs. distinct neural basis of these multitasking limitations is still open. We performed two Activation Likelihood Estimation meta-analyses of neuroimaging studies on dual-tasking or task-switching and tested for commonalities and differences in the brain regions associated with either domain. We found a common core network related to multitasking comprising bilateral intraparietal sulcus (IPS), left dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC), and right anterior insula. Meta-analytic contrasts revealed eight fronto-parietal clusters more consistently activated in dual-tasking (bilateral frontal operculum, dPMC, and anterior IPS, left inferior frontal sulcus and left inferior frontal gyrus) and, conversely, four clusters (left inferior frontal junction, posterior IPS, and precuneus as well as frontomedial cortex) more consistently activated in task-switching. Together with sub-analyses of preparation effects in task-switching, our results argue against purely passive structural processing limitations in multitasking. Based on these findings and drawing on current theorizing, we present a neuro-cognitive processing model of multitasking.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The most commonly used cognitive neuroscience paradigms for studying cognitive flexibility are those that require task switching or set-shifting (17–20).”
From Brain Mechanisms Supporting Flexible Cognition and Behavior in Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorder (2021) · cites this paper as [17]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Items 201–213 of 213
Aging and response conflict solution: behavioural and functional connectivity changes
Langner, R., Cieslik, E. C., Behrwind, S. D., Roski, C., Caspers, S., Amunts, K., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2014) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-014-0758-0 · Cited by 31
fMRI task parameters influence hemodynamic activity in regions implicated in mental set switching
Witt, S. T., & Stevens, M. C. G. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.072 · Cited by 31
Cue-switch effects do not rely on the same neural systems as task-switch effects
Baene, W. D., & Braß, M. (2011) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-011-0055-9 · Cited by 29
Gazes, Y., Rakitin, B. C., Habeck, C. G., Steffener, J., & Stern, Y. (2012) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.09.039 · Cited by 28
Anticipating the consequences of action: An fMRI study of intention-based task preparation
Ruge, H., Müller, S. C., & Braver, T. S. (2010) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01027.x · Cited by 26
Hartwigsen, G., & Siebner, H. R. (2015) · Brain stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2015.04.011 · Cited by 26
Hierarchical rule switching in prefrontal cortex
Yoshida, W., Funakoshi, H., & Ishii, S. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.017 · Cited by 25
Shi, Y., Zhou, X., Müller, H. J., & Schubert, T. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.097 · Cited by 24
Mochizuki, H., Tashiro, M., Gyoba, J., Suzuki, M. M., Okamura, N., Itoh, M., & Yanai, K. (2007) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.07.046 · Cited by 20
Interindividual Differences in Mid-Adolescents in Error Monitoring and Post-Error Adjustment
Rodehacke, S., Mennigen, E., Müller, K. U., Ripke, S., Jacob, M. J., Hübner, T., Schmidt, D. H. K., Goschke, T., & Smolka, M. N. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088957 · Cited by 16
Witt, S. T., & Stevens, M. C. G. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.007 · Cited by 14
Cortical Response to Task-relevant Stimuli Presented outside the Primary Focus of Attention
Houtkamp, R., & Braun, J. (2009) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21327 · Cited by 10
Broca's region revisited: Cytoarchitecture and intersubject variability
Amunts, K., Schleicher, A., B�rgel, U., Mohlberg, H., Uylings, H. B. M., & Zilles, K. (1999) · The Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19990920)412:2
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Freezing revisited: coordinated autonomic and central optimization of threat coping
Roelofs, K., & Dayan, P. (2022) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-022-00608-2 · Cited by 160
Principles of cognitive control over task focus and task switching
Egner, T. (2023) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-023-00234-4 · Cited by 161
Uddin, L. Q. (2021) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.05.010 · Cited by 116
Rodríguez-Nieto, G., Seer, C., Sidlauskaite, J., Vleugels, L., Van Roy, A., Hardwick, R., & Swinnen, S. (2022) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119665 · Cited by 89
Dhingra, I., Zhang, S., Zhornitsky, S., Wang, W., Le, T. M., & Li, C. R. (2021) · BMC Neuroscience · doi:10.1186/s12868-021-00618-3 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Worringer, B., Langner, R., Koch, I., Eickhoff, S. B., Eickhoff, C. R., & Binkofski, F. C.
- Affiliations
- Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
- RWTH Aachen University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Langner, Robert
- Venue
- Brain Structure and Function
- Published
- 2019-04-29
- Volume
- 224
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1845-1869
- ISSN
- 1863-2653 (ISSN-L)
- 1863-2661
- PMC
- PMC7254756
- OpenAlex
- W2942766273
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 212
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10
- FWCI
- 6.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Brain Structure and Function (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- National Institute of Mental Health
- Helmholtz Portfolio Theme “Supercomputing and Modeling for the Human Brain”
- European Union Seventh Framework Programme
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- dual-tasking, task switching, multitasking, neural correlates, intraparietal sulcus, dorsal premotor cortex, anterior insula, frontoparietal network, inferior frontal gyrus, precuneus, task preparation, cognitive control
- MeSH terms
- Multitasking Behavior, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Humans, Parietal Lobe, Neuroimaging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
