Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32440999›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2020

How is multi-tasking different from increased difficulty?

Zachary L Howard, Nathan J Evans, Reilly J Innes, Scott D Brown, Ami Eidels

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. An examination of sustained attention during complex multitasking scenarios.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Visual Motion and Decision-Making in Dyslexia: Reduced Accumulation of Sensory Evidence and Related Neural Dynamics.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zachary L HowardSchool of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. zachary.howard@uon.edu.au.
Nathan J EvansDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Reilly J InnesSchool of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Scott D BrownSchool of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Ami EidelsSchool of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the advancement of technologies like in-car navigation and smartphones, concerns around how cognitive functioning is influenced by "workload" are increasingly prevalent. Research shows that spreading effort across multiple tasks can impair cognitive abilities through an overuse of resources, and that similar overload effects arise in difficult single-task paradigms. We developed a novel lab-based extension of the Detection Response Task, which measures workload, and paired it with a Multiple Object Tracking Task to manipulate cognitive load. Load was manipulated either by changing within-task difficulty or by the addition of an extra task. Using quantitative cognitive modelling we showed that these manipulations cause similar cognitive impairments through diminished processing rates, but that the introduction of a second task tends to invoke more cautious response strategies that do not occur when only difficulty changes. We conclude that more prudence should be exercised when directly comparing multi-tasking and difficulty-based workload impairments, particularly when relying on measures of central tendency.

Indexed as

Models, PsychologicalExecutive FunctionHumansPsychomotor PerformanceBayesian modelingCognitive workloadComputational modelsMultitasking

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.