CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyCognitive Functions and Memory

The dual-task practice advantage: empirical evidence and cognitive mechanisms

Open access
Strobach, Tilo·2020·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-019-01619-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Practice of two simultaneous component tasks in dual-task situations leads to an improvement in dual-task performance. The present paper reviews empirical evidence for this practice-related improvement and discusses its underlying cognitive mechanisms. In particular, the robustness of the phenomenon of dual-task practice advantage (DTPA) is evaluated. This phenomenon is described as an advantage in dual-task performance at the end of dual-task practice (i.e., simultaneous task practice) in comparison to the dual-task performance after single-task practice (i.e., separate task practice). The review investigates the existence of empirical evidence of the DTPA phenomenon and specifications of its mechanisms in the context of the allocation and scheduling hypothesis and the integration hypothesis. Evidence for the existence of the DTPA phenomenon and the allocation and scheduling hypothesis was demonstrated in dual tasks with (1) combinations of two sensorimotor tasks, (2) combinations of one continuous task and one sensorimotor task, (3) combinations of two working-memory tasks, and (4) combinations of one motor task and one cognitive task. In contrast, the findings demonstrate that the DTPA phenomenon in dual tasks with (5) combinations of two long-term memory retrieval tasks can instead be explained by the integration hypothesis. The relevance of these findings is discussed in relation to real-world problems.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13423-019-01619-4

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Training can reduce interference between tasks, but non-standard procedures can lead to detrimental dual-task interactions and compromise lesion detection abilities.

    “Although training can reduce interference between the tasks, the implementation of non-standard procedures, such as demanding maneuvers, can lead to detrimental dual-task interactions and compromise lesion detection abilities [36] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Introduction (page not provided) says dual-task practice can reduce interference, and the Empirical evidence section reports reduced dual-task costs after practice. The paper does not address non-standard procedures or demanding maneuvers compromising lesion detection; its detection examples concern signs or shapes, not lesions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Band, G. P., & van Nes, F. T. (2006). Reconfiguration and the bottleneck: Does task switching affect the refractory period effect? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 593-623.
  2. Damos, D. L., & Wickens, C. D. (1980). The identification and transfer of timesharing skills. Acta Psychologica, 46(1), 15-39.
  3. Dux, P. E., Tombu, M. N., Harrison, S., Rogers, B. P., Tong, F., & Marois, R. (2009). Training improves multitasking performance by increas- ing the speed of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63(1), 127-138.
  4. Fisk, A. D., & Schneider, W. (1984). Memory as a function of attention, level of processing, and automatization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(2), 181-197.
  5. Gopher, D. (1993). The skill of attention control: Acquisition and execu- tion of attention strategies. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychol- ogy, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 299- 322). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  6. Hartley, A. A., Maquestiaux, F., & Butts, N. S. (2011). A demonstration of dual-task performance without interference in some older adults. Psychology and Aging, 26(1), 181-187.
  7. Hazeltine, E., Aparicio, P., Weinstein, A., & Ivry, R. B. (2007). Configural response learning: The acquisition of a nonpredictive motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1451-1467.
  8. Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52(4), 291-345.
  9. Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 527.
  10. Hirst, W., Spelke, E. S., Reaves, C. C., Caharack, G., & Neisser, U. (1980). Dividing attention without alternation or automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(1), 98.
  11. Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), 6829- 6833.
  12. Jiang, Y., Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). Functional magnetic reso- nance imaging provides new constraints on theories of the psycho- logical refractory period. Psychological Science, 15(6), 390-396.
  13. Kamienkowski, J. E., Pashler, H., Dehaene, S., & Sigman, M. (2011). Effects of practice on task architecture: Combined evidence from interference experiments and random-walk models of decision mak- ing. Cognition, 119(1), 81-95.
  14. Karbach, J., & Kray, J. (2016). Executive functions. In T. Strobach & J. Karbach (Eds.), Cognitive training -An overview of features and applications (pp. 93-103). New York, NY: Springer.
  15. Kieras, D. E., Meyer, D. E., Ballas, J. A., & Lauber, E. J. (2000). Modern computational perspectives on executive mental processes and cognitive control: Where to from here. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 681-712). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  16. Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. F., & Strayer, D. L. (1995). Training for atten- tional control in dual task settings: a comparison of young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(1), 50-76.
  17. Lien, M.-C., Schweickert, R., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 692-712.
  18. Liepelt, R., Strobach, T., Frensch, P., & Schubert, T. (2011). Improved intertask coordination after extensive dual-task practice. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(7), 1251-1272.
  19. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual atten- tion in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393.
  20. Maquestiaux, F., Hartley, A. A., & Bertsch, J. (2004). Can practice over- come age-related differences in the psychological refractory period effect? Psychology and Aging, 19(4), 649-667.
  21. Maquestiaux, F., Laguë-Beauvais, M., Bherer, L., & Ruthruff, E. (2008). Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task autom- atization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1262-1282.
  22. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of execu- tive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104(4), 749-791.
  23. Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 273-310.
  24. Nino, R. S., & Rickard, T. C. (2003). Practice effects on two memory retrievals from a single cue. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 373.
  25. Oberauer, K., & Bialkova, S. (2011). Serial and parallel processes in working memory after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 606-614.
  26. Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2004). Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 689-707.
  27. Orscheschek, F., Strobach, T., Schubert, T., & Rickard, T. (2019). Two retrievals from a single cue: A bottleneck persists across episodic and semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1005-1028.
  28. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and the- ory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220-244.
  29. Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: I. Locus of practice effects in speeded choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 20-32.
  30. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155-189). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum (Uk)
  31. Taylor & Francis.
  32. Perumal, V., Melam, G. R., Alhusaini, A. A., Buragadda, S., & Sharma, N. (2017). Instruction prioritization in task-based balance training for individuals with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Somatosensory & Motor Research, 34(1), 27-33.
  33. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 3.
  34. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bot- tleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 280 -289.
  35. Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening? Psychological Research, 70(2), 125-142.
  36. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1-57.
  37. Schubert, T., & Strobach, T. (2018). Practice-related optimization of dual- task performance: Efficient task instantiation during overlapping task processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1884-1904.
  38. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101-108.
  39. Silsupadol, P., Shumway-Cook, A., Lugade, V., van Donkelaar, P., Chou, L.-S., Mayr, U., & Woollacott, M. H. (2009). Effects of single-task versus dual-task training on balance performance in older adults: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90(3), 381-387.
  40. Silsupadol, P., Siu, K.-C., Shumway-Cook, A., & Woollacott, M. H. (2006). Training of balance under single-and dual-task conditions in older adults with balance impairment. Physical Therapy, 86(2), 269-281.
  41. Strobach, T., Frensch, P., & Schubert, T. (2008). The temporal stability of skilled dual-task performance. Paper presented at the Cognitive Science 2007. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society of Germany. Saarbrücken.
  42. Strobach, T., Frensch, P., Soutschek, A., & Schubert, T. (2012). Investigation on the improvement and transfer of dual-task coordi- nation skills. Psychological Research, 76(6), 794-811.
  43. Strobach, T., & Karbach, J. (2016). Cognitive training. New York, NY: Springer.
  44. Strobach, T., Liepelt, R., Pashler, H., Frensch, P., & Schubert, T. (2013). Effects of extensive dual-task practice on processing stages in simul- taneous choice tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(5), 900-920.
  45. Strobach, T., Salminen, T., Karbach, J., & Schubert, T. (2014a). Practice- related optimization and transfer of executive functions: a general review and a specific realization of their mechanisms in dual tasks. Psychological Research, 78(6), 836-851.
  46. Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2014). Positive consequences of action- video game experience on human cognition: Potential benefits on a societal level. In K. K. Mak (Ed.), Epidemiology of online game addiction.: OMICS Group.
  47. Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2017). Mechanisms of practice-related re- ductions of dual-task interference with simple tasks: data and theory. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 28-41.
  48. Strobach, T., Schubert, T., Pashler, H., & Rickard, T. (2014b). The spec- ificity of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 42(4), 552-569.
  49. Szameitat, A. J., Lepsien, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Sterr, A., & Schubert, T. (2006). Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: an event-related fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70(6), 541-552.
  50. Szameitat, A. J., Schubert, T., Müller, K. U., & Von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Localization of executive functions in dual-task perfor- mance with fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(8), 1184-1199.
  51. Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120(3), 439-471.
  52. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(5), 795-810.
  53. Townsend, J. T., & Wenger, M. J. (2004). A theory of interactive parallel processing: new capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1003-1035.
  54. Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice elim- inate the Psychological Refractory Period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(5), 1268-1283.
  55. Welford, A. T. (1952). The 'psychological refractory period'and the timing of high-speed performance-a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43(1), 2-19.
  56. Welford, A. T. (1980). The single-channel hypothesis. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 215-252). London: Academic Press.
  57. Wollesen, B., & Voelcker-Rehage, C. (2013). Training effects on motor- cognitive dual-task performance in older adults. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 11:122.
  58. Woollacott, M., & Shumway-Cook, A. (2002). Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait & Posture, 16(1), 1-14.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strobach, T.
Affiliations
MSH Medical School Hamburg – University of Applied Sciences and Medical University (DE)
Corresponding author
Strobach, Tilo
ORCID
Strobach, Tilo
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-05-31
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
3-14
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-019-01619-4
OpenAlex
W2947292024
Cited by
76
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (STR 1223/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
dual-task performance, integration hypothesis, sensorimotor tasks, working memory, long-term memory retrieval, cognitive mechanisms
MeSH terms
Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Practice, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Executive Function

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