Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39548026›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2024

On the localization of reward effects in overlapping dual tasks.

Leif E Langsdorf, Daniel Darnstaedt, Torsten Schubert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Leif E LangsdorfInstitute for Psychology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany. leif.langsdorf@psych.uni-halle.de.
Daniel DarnstaedtInstitute for Psychology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Torsten SchubertInstitute for Psychology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany. torsten.schubert@psych.uni-halle.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In dual-task (DT) situations, performance deteriorates compared with single-task situations. Such performance decrements are frequently explained with the serial scheduling of the response selection stages constituting a bottleneck. Proof of this assumption stems from the observation that response times for the second task (task 2; RT 2) increase with decreasing stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA).In this study, we investigated how the reward prospect for task 1 performance affects task 1 and task 2 processing. For that purpose, we relied on the psychological refractory period paradigm (PRP) as a chronometric tool, to determine the locus of the reward effect in the processing chain of both tasks.We obtained improved task 1 and task 2 performance; as indicated by reduced RTs in the reward compared to the no reward condition of task 1 and task 2. Furthermore, the reward effect propagated at short SOA from task 1 onto task 2, suggesting that the locus of the reward effect can be pinpointed before or at the bottleneck of task 1. Importantly, the mean reward effect on task 1 was increased compared to task 2, thus indicating that parts of the reward effect were not propagated onto task 2, therefore affecting task 1 motor processes.In Experiment 2, we tested for the locus of the effect propagation to task 2. Therefore, we implemented a difficulty manipulation of the response selection of task 2. The results indicate that the reward effect is propagated from task 1 onto the response selection stage of task 2.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeRewardAdultAttentionFemaleHumansMaleRefractory Period, PsychologicalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39548026
PMCPMC11568026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.