title: Delays without mistakes: response time and error distributions in dual-task.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  When two tasks are presented within a short interval, a delay in the execution of the second task has been systematically observed. Psychological theorizing has argued that while sensory and motor operations can proceed in parallel, the coordination between these modules establishes a processing bottleneck. This model predicts that the timing but not the characteristics (duration, precision, variability...) of each processing stage are affected by interference. Thus, a critical test to this hypothesis is to explore whether the quality of the decision is unaffected by a concurrent task.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In number comparison--as in most decision comparison tasks with a scalar measure of the evidence--the extent to which two stimuli can be discriminated is determined by their ratio, referred as the Weber fraction. We investigated performance in a rapid succession of two non-symbolic comparison tasks (number comparison and tone discrimination) in which error rates in both tasks could be manipulated parametrically from chance to almost perfect. We observed that dual-task interference has a massive effect on RT but does not affect the error rates, or the distribution of errors as a function of the evidence.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results imply that while the decision process itself is delayed during multiple task execution, its workings are unaffected by task interference, providing strong evidence in favor of a sequential model of task execution.
authors.affiliation: Integrative Neuroscience Laboratory, Physics Department, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. juank@df.uba.ar
authors.forename: Juan Esteban
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Kamienkowski
authors.forename: Mariano
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sigman
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D001931:Brain Mapping; D003071:Cognition; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning; D008297:Male; D008606:Mental Processes; D015233:Models, Statistical; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D012033:Refractory Period, Psychological; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013997:Time Factors; D014796:Visual Perception
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1980 Nov;8(6):612-22
references.pmid: 6163942
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Jun;9(2):278-91
references.pmid: 12120790
references.citation: PLoS Biol. 2005 Feb;3(2):e37
references.pmid: 15719056
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990 Aug;16(3):626-41
references.pmid: 2144576
references.citation: Neuron. 2004 Mar 25;41(6):983-93
references.pmid: 15046729
references.citation: Ergonomics. 1970 Jan;13(1):37-58
references.pmid: 5416868
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):550-92
references.pmid: 11488378
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Jan;2(1):33-42
references.pmid: 11253357
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Mar;6(3):177-90
references.pmid: 15711599
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Mar;8(1):73-80
references.pmid: 11340869
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1994 Sep;116(2):220-44
references.pmid: 7972591
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jan 23;93(2):628-33
references.pmid: 8570606
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1984 Jun;35(6):536-42
references.pmid: 6483555
references.citation: Cognition. 2006 Jan;98(3):199-222
references.pmid: 15876429
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Jan 1;5(1):10-16
references.pmid: 11164731
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1982 Feb;31(2):175-82
references.pmid: 7079098
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2002 Mar;44(2):105-47
references.pmid: 11863322
references.citation: Neuron. 2003 Jan 9;37(1):149-57
references.pmid: 12526780
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Nov;16(9):1493-504
references.pmid: 15601514
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2008 Jul 23;28(30):7585-98
references.pmid: 18650336
references.citation: PLoS Biol. 2006 Jul;4(7):e220
references.pmid: 16787105
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2003 May;14(3):237-43
references.pmid: 12741747
references.citation: Neuron. 2004 Oct 28;44(3):547-55
references.pmid: 15504333
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Feb;4(2):59-65
references.pmid: 10652523
references.citation: Brain Res. 2008 Jun 18;1215:160-72
references.pmid: 18482718
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1967 Mar;67(3):202-13
references.pmid: 5341896
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2005 Aug;165(1):54-68
references.pmid: 15827737
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Jul;114(3):830-41
references.pmid: 17638508
references.citation: Nature. 1967 Sep 30;215(5109):1519-20
references.pmid: 6052760
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2001 Nov;33(4):457-69
references.pmid: 11816448
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993 Dec;19(6):1292-312
references.pmid: 8294893
references.citation: Brain. 2002 Jun;125(Pt 6):1275-82
references.pmid: 12023316
references.citation: Brain Res. 2007 Mar 16;1137(1):131-9
references.pmid: 17258178
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1221-47
references.pmid: 17678639
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):401-6
references.pmid: 16683927
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Feb;11(1):77-83
references.pmid: 15116990
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):238-55
references.pmid: 3375400
references.citation: Science. 1980 Aug 8;209(4457):704-6
references.pmid: 7394529
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Dec;8(4):698-707
references.pmid: 11848588
references.citation: Science. 2004 Oct 15;306(5695):499-503
references.pmid: 15486303
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1982 Aug;32(2):163-70
references.pmid: 7145586
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2003 May 1;20(3):487-506
references.pmid: 20957581
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Feb;14(1):3-22
references.pmid: 17546727
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2007 Oct 1;45(13):3038-53
references.pmid: 17659310