ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
On the temporal dynamics of reward utilization in dual-task situations.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In dual-task (DT) situations, performance typically deteriorates compared with single-tasking situations. These decrements can be explained by the serial scheduling of response selection stages constituting a central bottleneck as with decreasing stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) the reaction time for the second task (Task 2; RT2) increases. Prior studies indicated that the reaction time for the first task (Task 1; RT1) and RT2 are improved in reward compared with no-reward conditions for a block-wise reward prospect, which reflects reward-related optimization in DT processing. However, it remains unclear whether participants can flexibly utilize reward information in a trial-by-trial manner to achieve reward-related improvements. Additionally, it is unclear whether a potential reward-related optimization reflects optimized task preparation only or whether the prospect of reward can evoke an additional task optimization mechanism that extends beyond preparation-related processing improvements. For Experiment 1, we combined a trial-wise reward prospect for participants' Task 1 performance, which was signaled by a cue before Task 1 onset, with block-wise presented cue-target intervals (CTI) of either 200 ms or 700 ms, resulting in precise temporal predictability of Task 1 onset by participants. First, we observed a reduced RT1 in the reward compared with the no-reward condition. Furthermore, the reward effects increased on RT2 for short compared with long SOAs, reflecting effect propagation at short SOA from Task 1 onto Task 2. Second, RTs decreased with increasing CTI, while reward effects increased with increasing CTI. Consequently, preparation-related processing improvements of DT performance were additionally improved by reward utilization. For Experiment 2, temporal predictability of Task 1 onset was reduced compared with Experiment 1 by presenting CTIs randomized within blocks, which allowed replicating the result pattern of Experiment 1. Across both experiments, the results indicate that participants can flexibly utilize reward information in a trial-by-trial manner and that reward utilization additionally improves preparation-related processing improvements for DT conditions with predictable and less predictable Task 1 onset.
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.