ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Dual-task interference: Bottleneck constraint or capacity sharing? Evidence from automatic and controlled processes.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating differential practice effects on cued task-order coordination and coordination adjustment in dual tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cortical activation and functional connectivity during dual-task walking under different cognitive loads: an fNIRS study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Comparative study of effect of high intensity interval training and playing mobile games on reaction time in young adults using a Stroop test.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
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
This study investigated whether the interference between two tasks in dual-task processing stems from bottleneck limitations or insufficient cognitive resources due to resource sharing. Experiment 1 used tone discrimination as Task 1 and word or pseudoword classification as Task 2 to evaluate the effect of automatic versus controlled processing on dual-task interference under different SOA conditions. Experiment 2 reversed the task order. The results showed that dual-task interference persisted regardless of task type or order. Neither experiment found evidence that automatic tasks could eliminate interference. This suggests that resource limitations, rather than bottlenecks, may better explain dual-task costs. Specifically, when tasks compete for limited resources, the processing efficiency of both tasks is significantly reduced. Future research should explore how cognitive resources are dynamically allocated between tasks to better account for dual-task interference effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38418805What 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.