The problem state: A cognitive bottleneck in multitasking.
Abstract
The main challenge for theories of multitasking is to predict when and how tasks interfere. Here, we focus on interference related to the problem state, a directly accessible intermediate representation of the current state of a task. On the basis of Salvucci and Taatgen's (2008) threaded cognition theory, we predict interference if 2 or more tasks require a problem state but not when only one task requires one. This prediction was tested in a series of 3 experiments. In Experiment 1, a subtraction task and a text entry task had to be carried out concurrently. Both tasks were presented in 2 versions: one that required maintaining a problem state and one that did not. A significant overadditive interaction effect was observed, showing that the interference between tasks was maximal when both tasks required a problem state. The other 2 experiments tested whether the interference was indeed due to a problem state bottleneck, instead of cognitive load (Experiment 2: an alternative subtraction and text entry experiment) or a phonological loop bottleneck (Experiment 3: a triple-task experiment that added phonological processing). Both experiments supported the problem state hypothesis. To account for the observed behavior, computational cognitive models were developed using threaded cognition within the context of the cognitive architecture ACT-R (Anderson, 2007). The models confirm that a problem state bottleneck can explain the observed interference.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The problem state acts as a processing bottleneck in multitasking because it can only maintain information for a single task at a time, causing interference when required by multiple tasks concurrently.
“The problem state acts as a processing bottleneck in multitasking, as it can only maintain information for a single task at a time, and thus causes interference when required by multiple tasks concurrently.”
From What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?: A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption (2015) · cites this paper as [10]
Subjects were considerably slower and made more errors when the problem state was required for two tasks, as compared to one or none of the tasks.
“In a series of experiments it was shown that subjects were considerably slower and made more errors when the problem state was required for two tasks, as compared to one or none of the tasks [8,10,11,12,37].”
From What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?: A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption (2015) · cites this paper as [10]
Memory-for-problem-states is based on memory-for-goals theory [2] and on research into the problem state bottleneck [10].
“Memory-for-problem-states is based on memory-forgoals theory [2] and on research into the problem state bottleneck [10].”
From What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?: A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption (2015) · cites this paper as [10]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 61 · Cited by 193
- Authors
- Borst, J. P., Taatgen, N. A., & van Rijn, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 363-382
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2026916986
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 31.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research (N00014-08-10541)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- multitasking, task interference, cognitive bottleneck, cognitive load, phonological loop, ACT-R, computational cognitive modeling, dual-task performance
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Cognition, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Mathematics, Memory, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, Comprehension, Young Adult
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
