ArticleJournal of cognition2020
Prescheduled Interleaving of Processing Reduces Interference in Motor-Cognitive Dual Tasks.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive and motor abilities predict auditory-cued finger tapping in a dual task.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous motor tasks like walking have the potential to allow a dynamic allocation of processing resources when interrupted by intermittent cognitive tasks. The degree to which a successful interleaving of processing streams of both tasks is possible may depend on the temporal regularity of events. Fifteen subjects participated in an experiment where we systematically manipulated the regularity of stimulus onsets in a 2-back task relative to the step cycle. We tested three conditions where stimulus onset was always synchronous to a defined event in the stride (right heel strike, left heel strike, and midway between two heel strikes) and two conditions where the temporal location of the stimulus shifted from stride to stride. In order to test for potential effects of task difficulty, we also manipulated walking speed. We measured reaction times, accuracy of the reactions and several measures describing motor performance. There was no sign of task interference in these measures when stimuli always appeared at the same relative location within the step cycle. However, we observed prolonged reaction times when the stimulus came up earlier than expected. Surprisingly, in the other non-regular regime, where the stimulus appeared later than expected, reaction times were fastest. We interpret this result in the light of a prescheduled allocation of processing resources that is linked to the cyclic profile of processing requirements of the motor task.
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.