The influence of peripheral information on a proactive process during multitasking

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine whether peripheral information facilitates proactive processes during multitasking. For this purpose, peripheral information was presented regularly during multitasking and its effects on the performance of a tracking task (main task: reactive process) and a discrimination task (sub-task: proactive process) were examined. Experiment 1 presented peripheral information (white circles) in the same sensory modality (visual) as the information used for multitasking and the number of circle presentations was manipulated. In Experiment 2, a pure tone (auditory) was presented as peripheral information. We found that, in both experiments, the difficulty of the tracking task influenced discrimination performance, showing that as the difficulty of the tracking task (reactive process) increased, more cognitive resources were consumed in the tracking task, resulting in a decrease in cognitive resources available for the discrimination task (proactive process). In addition, regular presentation of peripheral information facilitated discrimination task performance in both experiments. Interestingly, this peripheral information also facilitated the tracking task performance (reactive process) even if the tracking task was difficult. Moreover, this promoting effect of the peripheral information occurred regardless of the sensory modality. This study revealed that processing of peripheral information facilitates the proactive process even if more cognitive resources are consumed, and that this facilitating effect does not conflict with multitasking and provides a margin of cognitive resources and also facilitates the reactive process. Our results provide evidence of how peripheral information and cognitive resources are used during multitasking.

Keywords

Prediction peripheral information dual mechanism of cognitive control theory perceptual load theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Braver

T. S.

(2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106–113.

Braver

T. S.

Gray

J. R.

Burgess

G. C.

(2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. Variation in Working Memory, 75, 76–106.

Champely

Ekstrom

Dalgaard

Gill

Weibelzahl

Anandkumar

Ford

Volcic

DeRosaria

(2018). Package “pwr.” https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pwr/pwr.pdf

Clark

(2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Cohen

(2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.

Folk

C. L.

Remington

R. W.

Johnston

J. C.

(1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030–1044.

Friston

(2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 360(1456), 815–836. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1622

Friston

(2009). The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 13(7), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005

10.

Friston

(2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787

11.

Greenhouse

S. W.

Geisser

(1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289823

12.

Kahneman

(1973). Attention and effort. Prentice Hall.

13.

Kimura

(2016). Temporal prediction restores the evaluative processing of delayed action feedback: An electrophysiological study. NeuroReport, 27(14), 1061–1067. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000657

14.

Kimura

(2021). Multiple Spatial Coordinates Influence the Prediction of Tactile Events Facilitated by Approaching Visual Stimuli. Multisensory Research, 34(5), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-bja10045

15.

Kimura

(2023). Efficient use of peripheral information for temporal prediction. Biological Psychology, 177, 108484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108484

16.

Kimura

Katayama

(2020). Congruency of intervening events and self-induced action influence prediction of final results. Experimental Brain Research, 238(3), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05735-9

17.

Kleiner

Brainard

Pelli

(2007). What’s new in psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066070360S101

18.

Lavie

(2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004

19.

Lavie

(2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410370295

20.

Mento

(2013). The passive CNV: Carving out the contribution of task-related processes to expectancy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 827. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00827

21.

Mondor

T. A.

Amirault

K. J.

(1998). Effect of same- and different-modality spatial cues on auditory and visual target identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 745–755. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.745

22.

Noesselt

Bergmann

Hake

Heinze

H. J.

Fendrich

(2008). Sound increases the saliency of visual events. Brain Research, 1220, 157–163. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.12.060

23.

Posner

M. I.

(1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25.

24.

Shaffer

J. P.

(1986). Modified sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(395), 826–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478341

25.

Spence

(2010). Crossmodal spatial attention. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191(1), 182–200.

26.

Spence

Ranson

Driver

(2000). Cross-modal selective attention: On the difficulty of ignoring sounds at the locus of visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(2), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03205560

27.

Treisman

(1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 40(2), 201–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724988843000104

28.

Wahn

König

(2015). Audition and vision share spatial attentional resources, yet attentional load does not disrupt audiovisual integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1084. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01084

29.

Wahn

König

(2017). Is attentional resource allocation across sensory modalities task-dependent? Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0209-2

30.

Walter

W. G.

Cooper

Aldridge

V. J.

McCallum

W. C.

Winter

A. L.

(1964). Contingent negative variation: An electric sign of sensorimotor association and expectancy in the human brain. Nature, 203, 380–384. https://doi.org/10.1038/203380a0

31.

Wolfe

J. M.

(2014). Approaches to visual search: Feature integration theory and guided search. The Oxford Handbook of Attention, 11, 35–44.

32.

Zelinsky

G. J.

Bisley

J. W.

(2015). The what, where, and why of priority maps and their interactions with visual working memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1339(1), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12606