ArticleJournal of cognition2020
Cognitive Multitasking: Inhibition in Task Switching Depends on Stimulus Complexity.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of modality compatibility on dual-task performance in a more naturalistic environment.Psychological research · 2026Article
- The Random Soldier Kinematogram: a novel tool for task-switching research in military context.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Multitasking: does task-switching add to the effect of dual-tasking on everyday-like driving behavior?Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Highly automated driving: the role of visuo-attentional and executive abilities in take-over success.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Does implicit mentalizing involve the representation of others' mental state content? Examining domain-specificity with an adapted Joint Simon task.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- The State-of-the-art of Research into Human Multitasking: An Editorial.Journal of cognition · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report a series of three experiments investigating inhibition in task switching, using N-2 repetition costs as an empirical marker. The experiments were structurally identical, employing a standard experimental paradigm where participants switch between three different categorization tasks. The experiments differed with respect to the stimulus material. According to prominent theories of cognitive control, N-2 repetition costs should be observed in all three experiments. To our surprise, this is not what we observed: N-2 repetition costs did not occur in Experiment 1, where we used static pictures from a driving simulator environment showing an oncoming car, embedded in a car-driving scene. In contrast, we observed robust N-2 repetition costs in Experiment 2, where we used static pictures of faces, and in Experiment 3, where the identical car stimuli from Experiment 1 were used, but without the surrounding visual scene. These results suggest that N-2 repetition costs depend on the complexity of the stimulus material. We discuss two aspects of complexity: 1) When the relevant stimulus feature is embedded in a complex visual scene, task-irrelevant features in that scene might trigger additional task sets, and thus induce additional task switches, attenuating N-2 repetition costs among the instructed task sets. 2) The presence of distractors might lead to additional covert or overt shifts of spatial attention, which in turn might reduce the size of N-2 repetition costs. On a more general level, the results illustrate the difficulty of transferring laboratory tasks to settings that bear more similarity to everyday life situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.