ArticleJournal of cognition2026
Dissociating Task Selection and Response Selection in Dual-Task Contexts: Evidence from a Novel Trial-by-Trial Analysis of Temporal Overlap between Tasks.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the effect of temporal overlap in dual-task processing on task switch costs. Participants performed a psychological refractory period (PRP) experiment with a varying stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), which is the time interval between the onsets of the stimuli for Task 1 (T1) and Task 2 (T2). Trials included task repetitions, where T2 was identical to T1, and task switches, where T2 differed from T1. T2 performance was worse with shorter SOAs than with longer SOAs and in switch trials than in repetition trials, indicating a PRP effect and switch costs. Notably, switch costs were not modulated by the SOA. However, SOA cannot precisely determine whether T1 and T2 are performed with or without temporal overlap in a given trial. To distinguish between these trials, we assessed the time interval between the T1 response and the onset of the T2 stimulus, known as the response-stimulus interval (RSI). The RSI acts as a proxy to temporally localize when T1 response selection is completed and the response-selection bottleneck is released, This novel trial-by-trial approach revealed that switch costs did not differ between trials with and without temporal overlap in task processing. Moreover, RSI was found to predicted T2 performance more accurately than SOA. Using RSI as a predictor of RT2 provides persuasive evidence that task selection and response selection rely on independent cognitive processes. Alternatively, both processes use shared central processing limitations, but temporal and/or strategic factors prevent these processes from overlapping in time and thereby interfering with each other.
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.