ArticlePsychological research2024
Controlling response order without relying on stimulus order - evidence for flexible representations of task order.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigating differential practice effects on cued task-order coordination and coordination adjustment in dual tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In dual-task situations, both component tasks are typically not executed simultaneously but rather one after another. Task order is usually determined based on bottom-up information provided by stimulus presentation order, but also affected by top-down factors such as instructions and/or differentially dominant component tasks (e.g., oculomotor task prioritization). Recent research demonstrated that in the context of a randomly switching stimulus order, task order representations can be integrated with specific component task information rather than being coded in a purely abstract fashion (i.e., by containing only generic order information). This conclusion was derived from observing consistently smaller task-order switch costs for a preferred (e.g., oculomotor-manual) versus a non-preferred (e.g., manual-oculomotor) task order (i.e., order-switch cost asymmetries). Since such a representational format might have been especially promoted by the sequential stimulus presentation employed, we investigated task-order representations in situations without any bottom-up influence of stimulus order. To this end, we presented task stimuli simultaneously and cued the required task-order in advance. Experiment 1 employed abstract order transition cues that only indicated a task-order repetition (vs. switch) relative to the previous trial, while Experiment 2 used explicit cues that unambiguously indicated the task-order. Experiment 1 revealed significant task-order switch costs only for the second task (of either task order) and no order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating a rather generic representation of task order. Experiment 2 revealed task-order switch costs in both component tasks with a trend toward order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating an integration of task order representations with component task information. These findings highlight an astonishing flexibility of mental task-order representations during task-order control.
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.