ArticlePsychological research2026
Is multitasking efficient? Different metrics, different conclusions.
Article in Psychological research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multitasking-defined as the more or less overlapping execution of two or more tasks-has been shown to impair performance and induce performance costs. Nevertheless, individuals frequently engage in multitasking for private and work-related purposes. This raises the question: Do subjective impressions about multitasking efficiency diverge from objective measures, or can multitasking indeed comprise benefits in certain conditions? While previous assessments of multitasking efficiency focused mostly on central processing limitations, they largely neglected benefits of parallel peripheral task processing in overlapping task execution. To address this empirically, we conducted two multitasking studies and compared Time on Task (ToT; Reissland & Manzey, 2016), that is, the total time needed to finish both sub-tasks, in an overlapping versus a sequential dual-task condition. Experiment 1 (N = 18) applied a Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm with distinct task sets in Task 1 and Task 2. Experiment 2 (N = 32) used identical task sets to maximize between-task interference in the overlapping dual-task condition. Results of both experiments showed shorter ToT in the overlapping compared to the sequential dual-task condition, without much evidence of compensatory effects. These results suggest that the assessment of multitasking efficiency should consider the total time on task needed to perform both tasks to capture the costs of central processing limitations as well as benefits of parallel peripheral task processing. They further underscore the importance of carefully selecting and justifying the chosen evaluation metrics when assessing multitasking efficiency.
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.