Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42160393›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

Trial-level sequence modeling reveals hidden dynamics of dual-task interference.

Rick den Otter, Anna Dame, Sjoerd Stuit, Leendert van Maanen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Rick den OtterHelmholtz Institute, Department of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8852-1697
Anna DameHelmholtz Institute, Department of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sjoerd StuitHelmholtz Institute, Department of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Leendert van MaanenHelmholtz Institute, Department of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theories of dual-task interference assume that the same cognitive operations underlie multitasking regardless of stimulus timing, yet this core assumption has remained untested due to methodological limitations of behavioral averaging. Here, we combine hidden multivariate pattern (HMP) analysis with deep spatiotemporal sequence modeling of single-trial EEG to uncover the neural dynamics of multitasking in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. Using a deep spatiotemporal sequence model trained on Long stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) trials, we identify Encoding, Central, and Response operations and show that these same operations occur in the Short SOA condition, demonstrating shared cognitive processes across interference conditions. Additionally, trial-level decoding reveals multiple distinct sequences of cognitive operations across both tasks during interference, varying both within and across individuals. These sequences predict behavioral differences in reaction time and accuracy, revealing how interference timing within the cognitive operation sequence influences performance. In other words, we found trial-by-trial variability related to individual strategies directly affecting accuracy and reaction time (RT). Our findings challenge static bottleneck accounts and establish trial-level sequence modeling as a powerful tool to investigate the hidden dynamics of multitasking.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalCognitionComputational BiologyDual-Task TestsElectroencephalographyHumansReaction TimeRefractory Period, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID42160393
PMCPMC13215611

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.