The present work investigates how task modality (visual, auditory), task load level (low or high), and task load type (target-distractor similarity, display rate) influence dual-task interference in virtual reality (VR).
Background
Dual-task interference is influenced by various factors including perceptual modality, where tasks that share the same modality may yield larger performance decrements than tasks that do not. Task load (i.e., level and type) can also reduce performance in one or both tasks. However, the interaction between these factors in immersive environments like VR is still unclear.
Method
Participants performed a: (a) visual tracking task, (b) visual/auditory detection task, or (c) both concurrently in two different experiments. In Experiment 1, visual tracking load was manipulated via increasing target-distractor similarity, while detection load was manipulated via increasing display rate. In Experiment 2, detection load was manipulated by increasing target-distractor similarity.
Results
In Experiment 1, higher detection task loads induced greater dual-task costs (DTC) in the detection task regardless of task modality, whereas tracking task DTC was not influenced by higher task loads. In Experiment 2, higher detection task loads induced greater DTC in the detection task only when it was presented visually.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that tasks presented in the same modality may experience greater dual-task interference in one or both tasks depending on the task load level and type.
Application
These findings can inform the design of multimodal interfaces in complex multitasking environments like military operations or emergency response where minimizing dual-task interference at varying workloads is crucial.
AlaisD.MorroneC.BurrD. (2006). Separate attentional resources for vision and audition. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 273(1592), 1339–1345. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3420
2.
AlvarezG. A.FranconeriS. L. (2007). How many objects can you track? Evidence for a resource-limited attentive tracking mechanism. Journal of Vision, 7(13), 14–110. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.13.14
3.
BianchiniE.WarmerdamE.RomijndersR.HansenC.PontieriF. E.MaetzlerW. (2022). Cognitive dual-task cost depends on the complexity of the cognitive task, but not on age and disease. Frontiers in Neurology, 13, 964207. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.964207
4.
BockO. (2008). Dual-task costs while walking increase in old age for some, but not for other tasks: An experimental study of healthy young and elderly persons. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 5(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-5-27
5.
BroekerL.LiepeltR.PoljacE.KünzellS.EwoldsH.De OliveiraR. F.RaabM. (2018). Multitasking as a choice: A perspective. Psychological Research, 82(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0938-7
6.
CausseM.ImbertJ.-P.GiraudetL.JouffraisC.TremblayS. (2016). The role of cognitive and perceptual loads in inattentional deafness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 344. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00344
7.
ClarkL.IskandaraniM. E.RiggsS. (2024). Reaching interactions in virtual reality: The effect of movement direction, hand dominance, and hemispace on the kinematic properties of inward and outward reaches. Virtual Reality, 28(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00930-9
8.
ClarkL. D.El IskandaraniM.RiggsS. L. (2023). The effect of movement direction, hand dominance, and Hemispace on reaching movement kinematics in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–18). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581191
9.
CramerH. (1946). Mathematical methods of statistics (p. 27). Princeton University Press.
10.
DuncanJ.MartensS.WardR. (1997). Restricted attentional capacity within but not between sensory modalities. Nature, 387(6635), 808–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/42947
11.
El IskandaraniM.AtwehJ. A.McGarryS. P. D.RiggsS. L.MoacdiehN. M. (2023). Does it MultiMatch? What scanpath comparison tells us about task performance in teams. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 17(3), 15553434231171484. https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434231171484
12.
El IskandaraniM.AtwehJ. A.RiggsS. L. (2024). Time pressure detection in a visual search task using eye tracking metrics: A virtual reality study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 68(1), 1240–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241261288
13.
El IskandaraniM.BoltonM.RiggsS. L. (2025a). Examining dual-task interference effects of visual and auditory perceptual load in virtual reality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 205, 103619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103619
14.
El IskandaraniM.RiggsS. L. (2023). The effect of time pressure on visual search eye tracking metrics in virtual reality. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 67(1), 1525–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231192429
15.
El IskandaraniM.WickensC. D.BoltonM. L.RiggsS. L. (2025b). A computational multiple resource theory approach to modeling dual-task interference in VR: The roles of resource demand, resource conflict, visual angle separation, and task priority. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 69(1), 10711813251358799. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813251358799
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
17.
FerrisT. K.SarterN. (2010). When content matters: The role of processing code in tactile display design. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 3(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2010.10
18.
FougnieD.MaroisR. (2006). Distinct capacity limits for attention and working memory: Evidence from attentive tracking and visual working memory paradigms. Psychological Science, 17(6), 526–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01739.x
19.
GuthridgeR.Clinton-LisellV. (2023). Evaluating the efficacy of virtual reality (VR) training devices for pilot training. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 12(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7771/2159-6670.1286
20.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
21.
HightM. P. H.FussellS. G.KurkchubascheM. A.HummellI. J. (2022). Effectiveness of virtual reality simulations for civilian, Ab initio pilot training. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.15394/jaaer.2022.1903
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D. (2003). Multiple Resource Modeling of Task Interference in Vehicle Control, Hazard Awareness and In-vehicle Task Performance. In Driving Assessment Conference 2003 (2, pp. 7–12). University of Iowa Libraries. https://doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1082
24.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D. (2004). Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality. Human Factors, 46(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.4.611.56805
25.
JensenL.KonradsenF. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0
26.
JeraldJ. (2016). The VR book: Human-centered design for virtual reality. Association for Computing Machinery Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
27.
KahnemanD. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice Hall.
28.
KellyV. E.JankeA. A.Shumway-CookA. (2010). Effects of instructed focus and task difficulty on concurrent walking and cognitive task performance in healthy young adults. Experimental Brain Research, 207(1–2), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2429-6
29.
KrajenbrinkH.LustJ. M.WilmutK.SteenbergenB. (2023). Motor and cognitive dual-task performance under low and high task complexity in children with and without developmental coordination disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 135, 104453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2023.104453
30.
KramerA. F.WiegmannD. A.KirlikA. (Eds.), (2007). Attention: From theory to practice. Oxford University Press.
31.
LeleA. (2013). Virtual reality and its military utility. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 4(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-011-0052-4
MartensS.KandulaM.DuncanJ. (2010). Restricted attentional capacity within but not between sensory modalities: An individual differences approach. PLoS One, 5(12), Article e15280. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015280
34.
McPheeA. M.CheungT. C. K.SchmucklerM. A. (2022). Dual-task interference as a function of varying motor and cognitive demands. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 952245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.952245
35.
MurphyG.GroegerJ. A.GreeneC. M. (2016). Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1316–1340. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0982-5
NeesM. A.SampsellN. G. (2021). Simple auditory and visual interruptions of a continuous visual tracking task: Modality effects and time course of interference. Ergonomics, 64(7), 879–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.1873424
OksamaL.HyönäJ. (2004). Is multiple object tracking carried out automatically by an early vision mechanism independent of higher-order cognition? An individual difference approach. Visual Cognition, 11(5), 631–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280344000473
PinedaR. C.KrampeR. T.VanlandewijckY.Van BiesenD. (2023). Scoping review of dual-task interference in individuals with intellectual disability. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1223288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1223288
43.
PylyshynZ. W.StormR. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3(3), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856888x00122
44.
RabagliettiE.De LorenzoA.BrustioP. R. (2019). The role of working memory on dual-task cost during walking performance in childhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1754. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01754
45.
RauP.-L. P.ZhengJ.WangL.ZhaoJ.WangD. (2020). Haptic and auditory–haptic attentional blink in spatial and object-based tasks. Multisensory Research, 33(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-20191483
SalvucciD. D.TaatgenN. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.101
48.
SarnoK. J.WickensC. D. (1995). Role of multiple resources in predicting time-sharing efficiency: Evaluation of three workload models in a multiple-task setting. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(1), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0501_7
49.
SchollB. J. (2009). What have we learned about attention from multiple object tracking (and vice versa). In DonD.LanaT. (Eds.), Computation, cognition, and pylyshyn (pp. 49–78). MIT Press.
50.
SheridanT. B.TulgaM. K. (1978). A model for dynamic allocation of human attention among multiple tasks. NASA. Ames Res. Center the 14th annual conference on on manual control.
51.
StrobachT.WendtM.JanczykM. (2018). Editorial: Multitasking: Executive functioning in dual-task and task switching situations. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00108
52.
TsangS. N. H.ChanA. H. S.PanX.ManS. S. (2021). Auditory versus visual spatial stimulus-response mappings in tracking and discrete dual task performance: Implications for human-machine interface design. Ergonomics, 64(4), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1837396
53.
VienneC.MasfrandS.BourdinC.VercherJ.-L. (2020). Depth perception in virtual reality systems: Effect of screen distance, environment richness and display factors. IEEE Access, 8, 29099–29110. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2972122
54.
WestB. T.WelchK. B.GaleckiA. T. (2014). Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software, second edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17198
55.
WickensC. D.SandryD. L.VidulichM. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 25(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088302500209
56.
WickensC. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention, dual task performance, and workload assessment. Varieties of Attention, 63–98.
57.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806
WickensC. D. (2024). The multiple resource theory and model. Some misconceptions in data interpretations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 68(1), 10711813241260740. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241260740
60.
WickensC. D.DerrickW.BerringerD.MicalizziJ. (1980). The structure of processing resources: Implications for task configuration and workload. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 24(1), 253–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/107118138002400168
ZhangY. (2015). Towards a comprehensive computational theory of human multitasking: Advancing cognitive modeling with detailed analyses of eye movement data and large scale exploration of task strategies. University of Oregon.
