other words for dual task

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Is Dual-Task Training Clinically Beneficial to Improve Balance and Executive Function in Community-Dwelling Older Adults with a History of Falls?

Associated data.

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because they are part of an ongoing project.

Purpose: To date, the effects of dual-task training on balance underlying cognitive function remain unclear. Therefore, this study was to verify the effects of cognitive–physical dual-task training on balance and executive function in community-dwelling older adults with a history of falls. Method: Fifty-eight participants were randomly allocated to the experimental group (EG) receiving cognitive–physical dual-task training (n = 29) or to the control group (CG) receiving functional balance training (n = 29). After 12 sessions for 6 weeks, the One Leg Standing Test (OLST), the Timed UP and Go (TUG), and part B of the Trail-Making Test (TMT-B) were implemented to examine static and dynamic balance and executive function. Results: After the 12 sessions, the EG showed a greater improvement in the OLST ( p < 0.001; η 2 = 0.332), the TUG ( p < 0.001; η 2 = 0.375), and the TMT-B ( p < 0.001; η 2 = 0.224) compared to the CG. Conclusion: These results indicate that dual-task training is clinically beneficial to improving static and dynamic balance as well as executive function in older adults with a history of falls. These findings shed new light on a clinical implication that executive function should be considered in balance training for older adults.

1. Introduction

Balance is an ability to properly control posture to adapt to various environments through the interaction of sensation, motor, and cognitive systems, which is significantly correlated with falls [ 1 ]. Specially, imbalance commonly occurs under dual-task conditions among older adults since cognitive function decreases with aging [ 2 ].

Dual-task refers to the ability to perform two or more cognitive and physical activities simultaneously [ 3 ]. Since both cognitive and physical functions decrease with aging, dual-task performance could deteriorate, resulting in falls in older adults while performing activities of daily living that require maintaining balance under dual-task conditions [ 4 ]. Falls result in fracture, concern about falls, and considerable morbidity, posing a major threat to the quality of life of older adults [ 5 ]. Therefore, treatments for reducing fall risks under dual-task conditions have gained a lot of attention [ 6 , 7 ].

A number of studies have identified the effects of dual-task training on improving balance and reducing fall risks in older adults, who are at a high risk of falls, such as people with stroke, Parkinson’s disease, or history of falls [ 2 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. In most of the previous studies, dual-task training was conducted by performing cognitive tasks, such as word speaking or counting, while standing or walking on a treadmill or over the ground [ 3 ].

Although previous studies have reported positive effects of dual-task training, most of them explained its efficacy in balance in terms of improvements in physical components, such as velocity, step, and stride length, rather than cognitive components [ 6 , 11 , 12 ]. However, since cognitive factors significantly affect balance as well as physical components, the cognitive function underlying balance also needs to be investigated after dual-task training [ 3 ]. Indeed, recent studies have reported that high-level cognitive functions, such as attention shifting between movements and environments and inhibition of distracting stimuli, are necessary to maintain balance in complex environments while conducting different tasks simultaneously [ 4 , 8 , 13 ]. Specifically, given that a previous study showed that executive function deficits in older adults are closely associated with balance impairments, the effects of dual-task training on balance need to be established by executive function [ 14 ].

On the other hand, most of the previous studies indicated improvements in dynamic balance only [ 6 , 11 , 12 ]. Balance can be classified into static balance that enables to maintain posture without movement and dynamic balance required by adjusting a center for mass during movement [ 15 ]. Considering static balance also plays a crucial role for the prevention of falls in older adults [ 15 ], and it needs to be investigated after balance training.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of dual-task training on static and dynamic balance and executive function in older adults with a history of falls. This study hypothesized that dual-task training would show greater improvements in balance and executive function compared to single-task training after 12 training sessions in older adults who experienced falls.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. study design.

This study was a single-blind study, and subjects were randomly assigned into the experimental group or the control group using random numbers generated by Python computer language. This assignment was conducted by an experimenter who was unaware of the purpose of the present study. All assessors, who are occupational therapists with abundant clinical experience and have familiarity with the outcome assessments, were blinded to the group assignment. This study was conducted for 6 weeks, and subjects were assessed pre- and post-intervention. All subjects provided written informed consent according to the Declaration of Helsinki (2004). The current study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board registered at the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (ID: TCTR20210720006).

2.2. Subjects

Between May 2021 and July 2021, subjects were recruited from local senior centers through a recruitment notice in Seoul. A total of 72 older adults were screened, and then 58 were finally selected ( Figure 1 ). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) over 65 years of age, (2) those who have experienced falls in the last six months, (3) those who ambulate independently without any assistance devices, and (4) those who understand a simple instruction as confirmed by the Korean version of Mini-Mental Status Examination (≥24). The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) those who have any neurological, orthopedic, or psychological disorders, (2) those who have visual or auditory impairments, and (3) those who have not participated in any programs for improving balance in the last six months. Exclusion criteria were confirmed through self-report with a promise that subjects only report the truth. The criteria were in accordance with a previous study [ 16 ].

Flow diagram of subjects in the study.

The number of subjects was calculated using G*Power (Informer Technologies, Dusseldorf, Germany) [ 17 ]. With reference to a previous study [ 16 ], the effect size was set at 1.23, the α error at a probability of 0.05, and the power at 0.95, resulting in a minimum of 19 subjects required for each group.

2.3. Intervention

All sessions were conducted by one occupational therapist with seven years of clinical experience in local senior centers. All subjects carried out a 45 min training session, twice a week for 6 weeks, and they only received the training program, which is assigned to each group. All sessions were one-on-one with the subject. The duration and intensity of the training sessions were derived from previous studies reporting positive effects of dual-task training [ 2 ] and functional balance training [ 18 ] on balance in older adults, respectively. A five-minute warm-up period was given to all subjects before each training program.

In the EG, subjects receiving the dual-task training were instructed to practice balance tasks while simultaneously conducting cognitive tasks and were asked to maintain attention to both balance and cognitive tasks at all times. Detailed examples of the dual-task training program are described in Table 1 . In the CG, subjects conducted the balance training consisting of subprograms focusing on body stability, body stability combined with hand manipulation, body transport, and body transport combined with hand manipulation. Subjects in both groups completed all 12 sessions without missing, which resulted in a total of 12 sessions. Table 2 indicates detailed examples of the balance training program.

Dual-task training program.

Balance training program.

2.4. Measurement

To assess static balance, the One Leg Standing Test (OLST) was used. In the OLST, subjects were asked to put their hands on their hips and raise one leg from the floor with their eyes closed. The amount of time was measured from when the leg was raised until the leg was set back down on the floor using a stopwatch. The measurement was repeated for the other leg, and the two times were averaged. It has high test–retest reliability (r = 0.96) [ 19 ].

The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test was conducted to evaluate dynamic balance. In the TUG, subjects sitting on a chair with armrests were asked to make a round trip of 3 m and then sit on the chair. The amount of time for the trip was measured using a stopwatch. Its test–retest reliability is 0.96 [ 20 ].

To examine executive function, part B of the Trail-Making Test (TMT-B) was conducted. In the TMT-B, a sheet with 25 circle-shaped letters and numbers was presented, and subjects were instructed to connect the circles in alternating number–letter order. A maximum time of 300 s was given to complete it. The time to complete the task was recorded using a stopwatch [ 21 ].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows (version 22.0) (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The normal distribution of outcome variables was confirmed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. To compare subjects’ general characteristics between both groups, independent t -test and Chi-square analysis were used.

After 12 training sessions, a repeated two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to compare differences in outcome measurements between both groups. The effect size (ES) of each training was calculated using partial η 2 value. Partial η 2 ≥ 0.14 was considered a large effect; between ≥0.06 and <0.14 a moderate effect; and between ≥0.01 and <0.06 a small effect [ 22 ]. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3.1. Subject’s Characteristics

There were no significant differences in general characteristics between both groups ( Table 3 ).

General characteristics of participants (N = 58).

MMSE-K: Mini-Mental Status Examination; SD: Standard deviation.

3.2. Balance

Repeated ANOVA showed that group × time interaction was significant for the OLST ( p < 0.001; η 2 = 0.332) and the TUG ( p < 0.001; η 2 = 0.375), indicating that subjects in the EG showed greater improvements in both static and dynamic balance compared with those in the CG ( Table 4 ).

Changes in static and dynamic balance (N = 58).

(A 95% confidence interval) for within and between-group changes. OLST, One Leg Standing Test; TUG, Timed Up and Go test. *** Significant group × time interaction ( p < 0.001).

3.3. Executive Function

There was a significant group × time interaction for the TMT-B ( p < 0.001; η 2 = 0.224). This finding revealed that subjects in the EG achieved a greater improvement in executive function compared with those in the CG ( Table 5 ).

(A 95% confidence interval) for within and between-group changes. TMT-B, Trail Making Test-B. *** Significant group × time interaction ( p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

This study examined whether cognitive–physical dual-task training could be beneficial to improve balance and executive function in community-dwelling older adults with a history of falls. The findings of this study show that dual-task training is clinically beneficial to improving balance, which supports the hypothesis that balance could be enhanced by dual-task training.

In this study, all subjects in both the EG and the CG were asked to achieve postural control while conducting physical activities inducing postural sway, such as throwing a ball and carrying a bag. These activities involve complex interactions among somatosensory, visual, and vestibular systems controlling the relationships between body segments and external environment [ 1 ], which has a positive effect on balance supported by the improvements in static and dynamic balance in both groups. Indeed, a previous study indicated that plantar perception training as a somatosensory system exercise resulted in clinical improvements in static and dynamic balance [ 23 ]. Similarly, a previous study demonstrated that eyeball training as a vestibular system exercise enhanced balance [ 24 ]. Taken together, it was demonstrated that training using interactions among these systems could be a way to improve balance.

On the other hand, the findings of this study show that subjects in the EG achieved greater improvements in both static and dynamic balance compared to subjects in the CG. This result indicates that dual-task training might be more effective in improving balance than functional balance training, which is consistent with previous studies including the study referred to for calculating the number of subjects [ 16 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Previous studies reported that postural instability could be caused by attention deficits [ 28 , 29 ]. A previous study showed that attentional demands are closely associated with postural control in older adults [ 8 ]. With aging, inputs for vision and somatosensory were reduced due to high thresholds for the sensations [ 30 ]. Therefore, older adults require more attentional resources to maintain balance to compensate for decreases in sensory inputs [ 8 ]. Indeed, although sensory inputs were reduced, older adults with high attention capacity showed less postural sway than those with low attention capacity, suggesting cognitive components could play a crucial role in balance [ 8 ]. In this study, subjects in the EG were asked to control balance while simultaneously conducting cognitive tasks, which requires paying continuous attention to both tasks and inhibit interferences between cognitive and physical tasks, which is the core of executive function [ 31 ]. In other words, executive function is essential for successful dual-task training, supported by the results of this study that subjects in the EG showed improvement in the TMT-B, which adds a dimension of attention shifting, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility consisting of executive function compared to the TMT-A. Consequently, dual-task training induced positive effects on balance by enhancing executive function, which is in line with a previous study [ 14 ].

A balance impairment is one of the hallmarks of falls in older adults [ 32 ], and a growing body of evidence has reported the importance of cognitive factors to a balance impairment in older adults [ 33 ]. Thus, it is important to establish evidence on effective interventions to improve balance in older adults by enhancing cognitive function. This study implies that an enhancement in executive function could be a useful way to improve balance in older adults. The findings of this study have a clinical significance in that dual-task training could be performed to improve balance in the elderly who are not suitable for balance training focusing on physical components due to decreased flexibility and muscle strength. In addition, maintaining balance under dual-task conditions in older adults has more ecological validity compared to conventional balance training because a variety of activities of daily living involve simultaneous performance of multiple tasks challenging cognitive and motor capacities [ 6 ]. Therefore, dual-task training could be considered to be more effective than conventional balance training considering its ecological validity.

The present study suggests that dual-task training could be an alternative option instead of conventional balance training given that a cognitive factor might be important to reduce fall risk. Specifically, considering that community-dwelling older adults with a history of falls are at high risk for falls, dual-task training would be clinically beneficial to improve balance by improving executive function with its ecological validity in community settings. Nevertheless, this study has some limitations. First, no follow-up assessments were implemented, which limits knowledge of how long subjects in the EG were able to maintain improved balance and executive function. Second, this study did not investigate balance improvements in real environments. Since balance was assessed in the environment in which the training was carried out, the similarity of the environment might influence the present results. Third, although most of the previous studies have consistently reported that learning effects could not appear clearly with only two trials of outcome measurements [ 11 , 12 , 14 ], it is impossible to exclude them as this study did not involve inactive controls. Finally, neuroimaging devices were not used to observe the changes in the prefrontal cortex, which is mainly in charge of executive function [ 34 ], so this study could not confirm the possibility that dual-task training could be used for facilitating neuroplasticity of the prefrontal cortex. Therefore, future studies need to investigate the long-term effects of dual-task training on balance in a variety of real environments and executive function by using neuroimaging devices.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that 12 training sessions of dual-task training are more helpful in improving balance in older adults with a history of falls compared with conventional balance training, suggesting the feasibility that dual-task training could be used as an alternative method to improve balance in older adults with its ecological validity in community settings. Moreover, this study implies that executive function could be considered as one of the factors for improving balance in older adults in everyday life and especially suggests that improving executive function is useful as balance training for physically frail older adults.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by a Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT) grant funded by the Korean Government (MOTIE) (P0012724, The Competency Development Program for Industry Specialist), and the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Soonchunhyang University (202104-SB-031).

Informed Consent Statement

This study was approved for deliberation exemption because it minimizes the risk to the study subjects and the general public, does not collect or record the identify information of the study subjects, and does not target the study subjects in a vulnerable environment.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Perspective article, a current view on dual-task paradigms and their limitations to capture cognitive load.

• Department of Educational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Dual-task paradigms encompass a broad range of approaches to measure cognitive load in instructional settings. As a common characteristic, an additional task is implemented alongside a learning task to capture the individual’s unengaged cognitive capacities during the learning process. Measures to determine these capacities are, for instance, reaction times and interval errors on the additional task, while the performance on the learning task is to be maintained. Opposite to retrospectively applied subjective ratings, the continuous assessment within a dual-task paradigm allows to simultaneously monitor changes in the performance related to previously defined tasks. Following the Cognitive Load Theory, these changes in performance correspond to cognitive changes related to the establishment of permanently existing knowledge structures. Yet the current state of research indicates a clear lack of standardization of dual-task paradigms over study settings and task procedures. Typically, dual-task designs are adapted uniquely for each study, albeit with some similarities across different settings and task procedures. These similarities range from the type of modality to the frequency used for the additional task. This results in a lack of validity and comparability between studies due to arbitrarily chosen patterns of frequency without a sound scientific base, potentially confounding variables, or undecided adaptation potentials for future studies. In this paper, the lack of validity and comparability between dual-task settings will be presented, the current taxonomies compared and the future steps for a better standardization and implementation discussed.

Introduction

Empirical studies in educational research are often accompanied by the term cognitive load and its measurement. As a construct based on the Cognitive Load Theory ( Sweller et al., 1998 ), it is depicted to reflect the utilization of mental resources, in particular the working memory of an individual, via their level of exhaustion. It is assumed to vary between a higher or lower state, depending on the tasks performed, for instance, writing an essay versus reciting simple vocabulary. By identifying the parameters exhausting the mental resources, instructional settings can be adapted for a higher learning outcome. For this purpose, different methods to measure cognitive load have been developed over the years. Brünken et al. (2003) classify these methods based on their objectivity and causal relationship into four categories: subjective-direct, subjective-indirect, objective-direct, and objective-indirect methods.

Subjective measurements can be summarized as self-reports like questionnaires ( Leppink et al., 2013 ) to assess the perceived mental effort. It is not a method best used for continuous assessment as it is executed retrospectively ( Brünken et al., 2003 ) and seems to be influenced in the sensitivity and accuracy of its results by the timing and frequency of its use ( Chen et al., 2011 ; van Gog et al., 2012 ). Nonetheless, it is so far the only method to attempt to identify the cognitive load distinguished by its three dimensions intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load ( Brünken et al., 2010 ; Leppink et al., 2013 ; Klepsch et al., 2017 ). In contrast, objective measurements assess the performance of the individual simultaneously to the task and vary from physiological methods like electroencephalography ( Antonenko et al., 2010 ) or fMRI ( Whelan, 2007 ) to dual tasks ( Park and Brünken, 2018 ). Chen et al. (2011) found the objective measurements more lacking compared to subjective measurements, because of their lower sensitivity toward small changes in the cognitive load during a task. Brünken et al. (2003) , however, emphasized the difference in accuracy between indirect and direct measurements based on the causal relation of mental effort and experienced cognitive load. In that regard, indirect measurements tend to be unreliable in their interpretation as other factors might have influenced the reported responses ( Brünken et al., 2010 ). Objective-direct measurements like neuroimaging and dual tasks, however, relate directly to the experienced cognitive load ( Brünken et al., 2003 ). And while neuroimaging methods like fMRI seem promising, some limitations arise by the intrusiveness of the technical device. Dual tasks, often also referred to as secondary tasks, present an objective-direct measurement in which two tasks are to be performed simultaneously to observe performance drops in either task. There are two ways to conduct dual tasks, either to induce or to assess cognitive load ( Brünken et al., 2002 ; Klepsch et al., 2017 ). To induce cognitive load, the secondary task is designed to demand the mental resources needed for the primary task, for instance, by tapping or humming a melody ( Park and Brünken 2015 ; Sun and Shea, 2016 ). Therefore, the performance of the primary task is affected. In contrast, the cognitive load can also be assessed by simple decision-making tasks like mathematical tasks ( Lee et al., 2015 ; Tang et al., 2015 ), to observe the performance of the secondary task without influencing the primary task.

Due to these differences in objectivity and causal relation, dual tasks might be seen as an adequate alternative to assess cognitive load as a simultaneous, objective-direct measurement. However, the current state of research showcases a broad variety and heterogeneity of dual-task methods that lack standardization and continuity in their implementation. This in turn hinders the validity and comparability between studies as well as an accurate depiction of the cognitive load throughout the learning process. To further expand on this discrepancy between intent and implementation of dual tasks, this paper will discern the underlying cause of the lack of validity and comparability and present the current state on the taxonomy of dual tasks.

The Lack of Validity and Comparability in Dual-Task Settings

For a better understanding of the proclaimed issues, the validation as formulated by Kane (2013) should be consulted. He states in his argument-based approach that two steps have to be executed to ensure validity: specifying the proposed interpretation or use of the test and evaluating these claims based on appropriate evidence. The evidence is collected through four inferences that build up from a single observation in a test setting, for instance, a multiple-choice question, to the implementation of the target score as a reflection of the real-life performance. In the dual-task setting, it is comparable to question who and what the task is going to assess, which parameters encompass the proposed interpretation and use and if the determined parameters result in its successful accomplishment. However, aside a few exceptions, there is a lack of empirical investigation of secondary tasks, not only regarding their psychometric properties but also in relation to their respective dual-task settings ( Watter et al., 2001 ; Jaeggi et al., 2010 ). Contrary to the assumption of validity being universal for every setting of its respective test ( Kane, 2013 ), validity has to be examined for each new proposed interpretation and use. A similar sentiment can be found in the study of Jaeggi et al. (2010) , where one of the more common secondary tasks, the n-back task, was examined on its validity. The mixed results showed not only difficulty in confirming its validity but also a further need for implementation and examination in different settings.

Another issue arises in the form of lacking comparability between the different dual-task studies. Currently, most dual tasks are custom-made for their specific instructional setting, without any reference to an evaluated and standardized method. Most often, the decision behind the choice of a dual-task method is not further discussed, which in turn might hinder future researchers in continuing or implementing these studies. The different types of dual task not only lack a framework by which a fitting task can be chosen but they also ignore natural limitations in combining different tasks, for instance, a primary motoric task of walking and a secondary task of typing on a phone. This setting would result in a reduced performance of the primary task as the secondary task is naturally intrusive by limiting the field of vision ( Lamberg and Muratori, 2012 ). Nor do they focus as much on the aspect that experience in multitasking can increase the ability to dual task ( Strobach et al., 2015 ) or that dual tasks are great to measure progress in novices but not experts ( Haji et al., 2015 ). Similarly, to the topic of experts, there can be confounding variables, for instance, response automatization ( van Nuland and Rogers, 2016 ) and age, in particular dementia, influencing the participants ( Toosizadeh et al., 2016 ; Sawami et al., 2017 ).

The Current Taxonomy of Dual Tasks

Despite the broad heterogeneity of dual-task methods in instructional settings, one common denominator can be found. A dual-task setting consists of two tasks: the primary task that the researcher wants to observe and the secondary task that has no connection to it beyond its competitive nature. The participant has to perform both tasks concurrently. Apart from that, most attempts at creating a systematic approach toward the variety of dual-task methods have been few and far between and lacking a holistic view.

One of the earlier taxonomies by Brown (1978) postulated four design factors to determine differences between dual-task methods: the information processing demand, the prioritized task performance, the temporal structure and the locus of interference. The first design factor focused on the demand the chosen secondary task puts onto the information processing – either by stimuli with constant or variable demands, for example, changing between easy and complex tasks, or by continuously variable and continuously constant demands not bound to specific stimuli. Another role played the priority given to the secondary task, which could be either primary, secondary, or of equal importance to the primary task. It could be compared to the priorly mentioned ways of inducing or assessing cognitive load ( Brünken et al., 2002 ; Klepsch et al., 2017 ). van Nuland and Rogers (2016) further recommended the task priority to be explicitly stated in the participants’ instructions, as there otherwise might be a task performance trade-off. The third design factor by Brown (1978) focused on the temporal structure of the secondary task, which was either force-paced by the experimental setting, self-paced by the participant or force-paced by the experimental setting within a specific time interval. Lastly, the locus of interference between both tasks could either be at the sensory input or motor output, within the process of the tasks or a combination of all three. He argued though that both sensory input and motor output should not be used as a locus of interference as the dual-task method intends to focus on the mental resources and therefore needs to be used during the process of the mental activity.

Another attempt at categorizing and standardizing dual tasks from a physician’s viewpoint has been made by McIsaac et al. (2015) . Three main categories were stated: tasks by action, task complexity, and task novelty. The category of tasks by action distinguishes between dual tasks consisting of both cognitive, both motor, and cognitive-motor or motor-cognitive primary and secondary task combinations. Therefore, the selection of the proper dual-task method does not only focus on finding a fitting secondary task contentwise but also on its execution in combination with the primary task. The second category, task complexity, is in general a relevant factor but not easy to standardize. The complexity of a task might be felt differently for someone that has never done it versus an experienced user. In this case, task novelty also plays a role as the experience influences the complexity and therefore also the measurement results ( Strobach et al., 2015 ).

Lastly, the recent taxonomy by Wollesen et al. (2019) focused on the different task types. They distinguished between reaction time tasks, controlled processing tasks, visuospatial tasks, mental tracking tasks, working memory tasks, and discrimination tasks. The reaction time tasks were defined as tasks that rely on the reaction time between the sensory stimulus and the behavioral response, for example, pressing a button whenever a light goes on. The controlled processing task expands the reaction time task by the addition of a decision-making process, for example, pressing a button only when a specific symbol appears. The visuospatial task focuses on detecting or processing visual information, for example, finding a symbol in a rotated position. The mental tracking tasks require the memorization of information and are split into two subcategories: the arithmetic tests, for example, counting backward in 3 s (n-back tasks), and the verbal fluency, for example, naming words starting with the same letter. The working memory tasks are a simpler form of the mental tracking tasks as they only require holding information but not processing it, for example, memorizing a picture that has to be found again afterward. Lastly, the discrimination tasks focus on the selective attention toward a specific stimulus, for example, the Go/NoGo tasks in which participants have to either provide or withhold a response depending on the stimulus ( Verbruggen and Logan, 2008 ).

Expanding on the visuospatial tasks presented by Wollesen et al. (2019) , a few more modality-related classifications can be found. The method of tapping or humming melodies ( Park and Brünken 2015 ; Sun and Shea, 2016 ), mathematical tasks ( Lee et al., 2015 ; Tang et al., 2015 ), and visual tasks like reading text or symbols ( Scerbo et al., 2017 ; Wirzberger et al., 2018 ) showcase that the modality between primary and secondary task can differ between auditory/vocally, visually, and motoric tasks. Furthermore, as mentioned by Brown (1978) and Wollesen et al. (2019) , there can be differences in the frequency of the dual task, from event- or interval-based tasks that appear, for example, every 3, 5, or 7 s to continuous tasks that constantly request the participants’ attention. Yet, there is not really a study to be found that uses dual tasks continuously. Most rely on either interval- or event-based frequency.

Outlining a Holistic Taxonomy

The three taxonomies presented lack a holistic view of the dual-task setting and tend to either simplify or strongly limit the classification. For instance, McIsaac et al. (2015) categorizes tasks by action into cognitive or motor tasks even though the description of detecting a cognitive action outside of an fMRI setting seems contradictory. The participant needs to either act motoric or verbally to respond. In contrast, the taxonomy of Wollesen et al. (2019) expands on the task action by displaying a broader variety of secondary tasks but stays limited to only this one parameter. Furthermore, simply the difference between the two dual-task types of inducing and assessing cognitive load needs to be included in a taxonomy as it changes the intent and therefore the use of it. For this purpose, an attempt at a holistic taxonomy was made ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . Holistic taxonomy of dual-task settings with exemplary selection paths.

Parameters relevant to the design of the dual-task setting were included in a stepwise order, ultimately resulting in the selection of the secondary task based on the chosen path. Most of the options are not unique at that, for instance, middle complex tasks can be event-based too. Following the yellow-colored path as an example, after selecting to induce the cognitive load, the stimulus modality and task action modality of the primary task have to be regarded. For instance, choosing a verbal primary task would in turn either hinder a verbal secondary task or restrict the option of higher frequency types in the subsequent parameters. These selections are followed by the complexity of both tasks, and lastly the possible frequency types, frequency rate, and content of the secondary task. Lastly, the task action should show the possible options regarding the prior selections, in this case to either tap or push a button after the sound event, as the secondary task was intended to be auditory in its stimulus but motoric in its action. However, it should be noted that the taxonomy needs to be standardized to be usable as a guide or framework in designing a dual-task setting. The variations of the parameters need to be tested and validated, which, aside from a few exceptions, has yet to be done.

So far, the classifications of the current dual-task paradigms show a mix of different factors without a theoretical framework. Most studies lack a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind the implementation or adaptation of a secondary task, aside the general assumption of using a fitting cognitive load measurement. The presented taxonomies show a broad range of parameters but do not find a common ground. While McIsaac et al. (2015) summarize the different tasks by their action of cognitive versus motoric tasks, the complexity and the novelty of the task, Wollesen et al. (2019) go a bit further and categorize dual tasks by their execution, but with no regards to other parameters. In addition, both taxonomies need to be further specified for a profound framework, especially regarding the different modalities and frequency of dual tasks ( Brown, 1978 ). According to the dual-coding theory ( Paivio, 1971 , 1991 ), both verbal information and nonverbal/visual information interact for a better recall, but their information is processed differently in their own channel. Therefore, there should be a higher regard toward the selection of the task modalities and their influence on the cognitive load measurement. Using the same modalities in primary and secondary tasks might contribute to a higher cognitive load measurement because the information is not already distinguished simply by its sensory input. Further influences might be found in the different temporal structure of dual tasks, in particular the frequency in which the secondary task should be used. So far, even empirical studies that describe their task as continuous, end up being high-interval tasks or tasks that cannot be done over a longer time frame because of physical exhaustion, for instance, constant humming or tapping ( Park and Brünken 2015 ; Sun and Shea, 2016 ). This bears the question on how to change the lack of continuous dual tasks as this particular ability makes it a noteworthy measurement for the cognitive load. Furthermore, it not only needs to be usable over a longer period but also have more variations to be applicable in different settings. For this, it is advisable to look back at the modalities and the restrictions they contain as the physical strain and execution interfere with a continuous dual task. For example, humming a melody might influence an emotional reaction ( Schellenberg et al., 2013 ), but also simply put a physical strain over a longer period. Visual dual tasks would be hard to be kept up in a continuous setting as it would be hard to split the focus of the eyes toward two different tasks, see split-attention effect ( Ayres and Cierniak, 2012 ). A solution might be the use of eye-tracking to adapt the secondary task into a less intrusive method, for example, by changing colors and symbols in the background of the instructional setting to observe the eye movement. In motoric tasks, primary tasks usually cannot be physical as it tends to disturb the secondary task and heightens the physical strain. An exception can be created with physical tasks that work disconnected from each other, for example, tapping on a pedal while sitting and repairing machinery.

Conclusively, future research in relation to dual-task paradigms should take a step back in creating or expanding the different methods of dual tasks and firstly focus on creating a profound and universal taxonomy. Furthermore, the currently existing methods should be evaluated and adapted to create a standardized and reliable use. This of course needs an extensive analysis of the instructional settings and the possibilities to implement dual tasks based on pre-defined variables so that in the future researchers can more easily choose the fitting dual-task paradigms. Dual tasks should furthermore work more toward creating truly continuous tasks to ensure the direct measurement of cognitive load that it proclaims to be ( Brünken et al., 2003 ).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., and van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 425–438. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9130-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ayres, P., and Cierniak, G. (2012). “Split-attention effect” in Springer Reference. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning . ed. N. M. Seel (Boston, MA: Springer US), 3172–3175.

Google Scholar

Brown, I. D. (1978). Dual task methods of assessing work-load. Ergonomics 21, 221–224. doi: 10.1080/00140137808931716

Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ. Psychol. 38, 53–61. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7

Brünken, R., Seufert, T., and Paas, F. (2010). “Measuring cognitive load” in Cognitive Load Theory . eds. J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, and R. Brünken (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press), 181–202.

Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Exp. Psychol. 49, 109–119. doi: 10.1027//1618-3169.49.2.109

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, S., Epps, J., and Chen, F. (2011). “A comparison of four methods for cognitive load measurement,” in Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI 2011) . eds. N. Colineau, C. Paris, and D. Stevenson; Australian National University, Canberra; ACM SIGCHI; November 28–December 2, 2011; ACM, 76–79.

Haji, F. A., Khan, R., Regehr, G., Drake, J., de Ribaupierre, S., and Dubrowski, A. (2015). Measuring cognitive load during simulation-based psychomotor skills training: sensitivity of secondary-task performance and subjective ratings. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 20, 1237–1253. doi: 10.1007/s10459-015-9599-8

Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., and Meier, B. (2010). The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a working memory measure. Memory 18, 394–412. doi: 10.1080/09658211003702171

Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. J. Educ. Meas. 50, 1–73. doi: 10.1111/jedm.12000

Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., and Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Front. Psychol. 8:1997. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997

Lamberg, E. M., and Muratori, L. M. (2012). Cell phones change the way we walk. Gait Posture 35, 688–690. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.12.005

Lee, H.-I., Park, S., Lim, J., Chang, S. H., Ji, J.-H., Lee, S., et al. (2015). Influence of driver’s career and secondary cognitive task on visual search behavior in driving: a dual-task paradigm. Adv. Phys. Educ. 5, 245–254. doi: 10.4236/ape.2015.54029

Leppink, J., Paas, F., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., van Gog, T., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behav. Res. Methods 45, 1058–1072. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1

McIsaac, T. L., Lamberg, E. M., and Muratori, L. M. (2015). Building a framework for a dual task taxonomy. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015:591475. doi: 10.1155/2015/591475

Paivio, A. (1971). Imaginary and verbal processes . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status. Can. J. Psychol./Revue Canadienne De Psychologie 45, 255–287. doi: 10.1037/h0084295

Park, B., and Brünken, R. (2015). The rhythm method: A new method for measuring cognitive load-An experimental dual-task study. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 29, 232–243. doi: 10.1002/acp.3100

Park, B., and Brünken, R. (2018). “Secondary task as a measure of cognitive load” in Cognitive Load Measurement and Application: A Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Research and Practice . ed. R. Zheng (New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group), 75–92.

Sawami, K., Katahata, Y., Suishu, C., Kamiyoshikawa, T., Fujita, E., Uraoka, M., et al. (2017). Examination on brain training method: effects of n-back task and dual-task. F1000Research 6:116. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.10584.1

Scerbo, M. W., Britt, R. C., and Stefanidis, D. (2017). Differences in mental workload between traditional and single-incision laparoscopic procedures measured with a secondary task. Am. J. Surg. 213, 244–248. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.09.056

Schellenberg, E. G., and Weiss, W. M. (2013). “Music and cognitive abilities” in The Psychology of Music . 3rd Edn. ed. D. Deutsch (London: Academic Press), 499–550.

Strobach, T., Becker, M., Schubert, T., and Kühn, S. (2015). Better dual-task processing in simultaneous interpreters. Front. Psychol. 6:1590. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01590

Sun, R., and Shea, J. B. (2016). Probing attention prioritization during dual-task step initiation: a novel method. Exp. Brain Res. 234, 1047–1056. doi: 10.1007/s00221-015-4534-z

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., and Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251–296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205

Tang, P.-F., Yang, H.-J., Peng, Y.-C., and Chen, H.-Y. (2015). Motor dual-task timed up & go test better identifies prefrailty individuals than single-task timed up & go test. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 15, 204–210. doi: 10.1111/ggi.12258

Toosizadeh, N., Najafi, B., Reiman, E. M., Mager, R. M., Veldhuizen, J. K., O’Connor, K., et al. (2016). Upper-extremity dual-task function: an innovative method to assess cognitive impairment in older adults. Front. Aging Neurosci. 8:167. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00167

van Gog, T., Kirschner, F., Kester, L., and Paas, F. (2012). Timing and frequency of mental effort measurement: evidence in favour of repeated measures. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 26, 833–839. doi: 10.1002/acp.2883

van Nuland, S. E., and Rogers, K. A. (2016). E-learning, dual-task, and cognitive load: the anatomy of a failed experiment. Anat. Sci. Educ. 9, 186–196. doi: 10.1002/ase.1576

Verbruggen, F., and Logan, G. D. (2008). Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn. Sci. 12, 418–424. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005

Whelan, R. R. (2007). Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educ. Res. Rev. 2, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2006.11.001

Watter, S., Geffen, G. M., and Geffen, L. B. (2001). The n-back as a dual-task: P300 morphology under divided attention. Psychophysiology 38, 998–1003. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3860998

Wirzberger, M., Herms, R., Bijarsari, S. E., Eibl, M., and Rey, G. D. (2018). Schema-related cognitive load influences performance, speech, and physiology in a dual-task setting: a continuous multi-measure approach. Cognit. Res. 3:46. doi: 10.1186/s41235-018-0138-z

Wollesen, B., Wanstrath, M., van Schooten, K. S., and Delbaere, K. (2019). A taxonomy of cognitive tasks to evaluate cognitive-motor interference on spatiotemoporal gait parameters in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Rev. Aging Phys. Act. 16:12. doi: 10.1186/s11556-019-0218-1

Keywords: cognitive load, dual task, secondary task, measurement, validity, comparability, cognitive load measurement, taxonomy

Citation: Esmaeili Bijarsari S (2021) A Current View on Dual-Task Paradigms and Their Limitations to Capture Cognitive Load. Front. Psychol . 12:648586. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648586

Received: 31 December 2020; Accepted: 28 April 2021; Published: 20 May 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Esmaeili Bijarsari. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Shirin Esmaeili Bijarsari, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Recent Approaches for Assessing Cognitive Load from a Validity Perspective

• Original Article
• Published: 29 April 2019

Common and distinct neural correlates of dual-tasking and task-switching: a meta-analytic review and a neuro-cognitive processing model of human multitasking

• Britta Worringer 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Robert Langner 3 , 4   na1 ,
• Iring Koch 5 ,
• Simon B. Eickhoff 3 , 4 ,
• Claudia R. Eickhoff 4 , 6 &
• Ferdinand C. Binkofski 1 , 7 , 8  

Brain Structure and Function volume  224 ,  pages 1845–1869 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

3234 Accesses

53 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Although there are well-known limitations of the human cognitive system in performing two tasks simultaneously (dual-tasking) or alternatingly (task-switching), the question for a common vs. distinct neural basis of these multitasking limitations is still open. We performed two Activation Likelihood Estimation meta-analyses of neuroimaging studies on dual-tasking or task-switching and tested for commonalities and differences in the brain regions associated with either domain. We found a common core network related to multitasking comprising bilateral intraparietal sulcus (IPS), left dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC), and right anterior insula. Meta-analytic contrasts revealed eight fronto-parietal clusters more consistently activated in dual-tasking (bilateral frontal operculum, dPMC, and anterior IPS, left inferior frontal sulcus and left inferior frontal gyrus) and, conversely, four clusters (left inferior frontal junction, posterior IPS, and precuneus as well as frontomedial cortex) more consistently activated in task-switching. Together with sub-analyses of preparation effects in task-switching, our results argue against purely passive structural processing limitations in multitasking. Based on these findings and drawing on current theorizing, we present a neuro-cognitive processing model of multitasking.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution .

Access options

Buy single article.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Rent this article via DeepDyve.

Alexander MP, Stuss DT, Shallice T, Picton TW, Gillingham S (2005) Impaired concentration due to frontal lobe damage from two distinct lesion sites. Neurology 65:572–579

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Allport DA, Styles EA, Hsieh S (1994) Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In: Umilta C, Moscovitc M (eds) Attention and performance XV. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 421–452

Google Scholar  

Amunts K, Schleicher A, Burgel U, Mohlberg H, Uylings HB, Zilles K (1999) Broca’s region revisited: cytoarchitecture and intersubject variability. J Comp Neurol 412:319–341

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Andersen RA, Brotchie PR, Mazzoni P (1992) Evidence for the lateral intraparietal area as the parietal eye field. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2(6):840–846

Anderson MC, Bunce JG, Barbas H (2016) Prefrontal-hippocampal pathways underlying inhibitory control over memory. Neurobiol Learn Mem 134:145–161

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Badre D, Wagner AD (2006) Computational and neurobiological mechanisms underlying cognitive flexibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:7186–7191

Barber AD, Carter CS (2005) Cognitive control involved in overcoming prepotent response tendencies and switching between tasks. Cereb Cortex 15:899–912

Barber AD, Caffo BS, Pekar JJ, Mostofsky SH (2013) Effects of working memory demand on neural mechanisms of motor response selection and control. J Cogn Neurosci 25:1235–1248

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Begliomini C, Nelini C, Caria A, Grodd W, Castiello U (2008) Cortical activations in humans grasp-related areas depend on hand used and handedness. PLoS One 3:e3388

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Binkofski F, Dohle C, Posse S, Stephan KM, Hefter H, Seitz RJ, Freund HJ (1998) Human anterior intraparietal area subserves prehension: a combined lesion and functional MRI activation study. Neurology 50:1253–1259

Bisley JW, Goldberg ME (2003) Neuronal activity in the lateral intraparietal area and spatial attention. Science 299:81–86

Blangero A, Gaveau V, Luauté J, Rode G, Salemme R, Guinard M, Boisson D, Rossetti Y, Pisella L (2008) A hand and a field effect in on-line motor control in unilateral optic ataxia. Cortex 44:560–568

Blangero A, Menz MM, McNamara A, Binkofski F (2009) Parietal modules for reaching. Neuropsychologia 47:1500–1507

Blatt GJ, Andersen RA, Stoner GR (1990) Visual receptive field organization and cortico-cortical connections of the lateral intraparietal area (area LIP) in the macaque. J Comp Neurol 299:421–445

Botvinick MM, Cohen JD, Carter CS (2004) Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends Cogn Sci 8:539–546

Brass M, von Cramon DY (2002) The role of the frontal cortex in task preparation. Cereb Cortex 12:908–914

Brass M, von Cramon DY (2004) Decomposing components of task preparation with functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Cogn Neurosci 16:609–620

Braver TS, Reynolds JR, Donaldson DI (2003) Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron 39:713–726

Buchsbaum BR, Greer S, Chang WL, Berman KF (2005) Meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of the Wisconsin card-sorting task and component processes. Hum Brain Mapp 25:35–45

Article   Google Scholar  

Bunge SA, Hazeltine E, Scanlon MD, Rosen AC, Gabrieli JDE (2002) Dissociable contributions of prefrontal and parietal cortices to response selection. Neuroimage 17:1562–1571

Capotosto P, Tosoni A, Spadone S, Sestieri C, Perrucci MG, Romani GL, Della Penna S, Corbetta M (2013) Anatomical segregation of visual selection mechanisms in human parietal cortex. J Neurosci 33:6225–6229

Caspers S, Eickhoff SB, Geyer S, Scheperjans F, Mohlberg H, Zilles K, Amunts K (2008) The human inferior parietal lobule in stereotaxic space. Brain Struct Funct 212:481–495

Cavina-Pratesi C, Valyear KF, Culham JC, Köhler S, Obhi SS, Marzi CA, Goodale MA (2006) Dissociating arbitrary stimulus–response mapping from movement planning during preparatory period: evidence from event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci 26:2704–2713

Chambers CD, Payne JM, Stokes MG, Mattingley JB (2004) Fast and slow parietal pathways mediate spatial attention. Nat Neurosci 7:217–218

Chikazoe J, Jimura K, Asari T, Yamashita K, Morimoto H, Hirose S, Konishi S (2009) Functional dissociation in right inferior frontal cortex during performance of go/no-go task. Cereb Cortex 19:146–152

Chiu YC, Yantis S (2009) A domain-independent source of cognitive control for task sets: shifting spatial attention and switching categorization rules. J Neurosci 29:3930–3938

Choi HJ, Zilles K, Mohlberg H, Schleicher A, Fink GR, Armstrong E, Amunts K (2006) Cytoarchitectonic identification and probabilistic mapping of two distinct areas within the anterior ventral bank of the human intraparietal sulcus. J Comp Neurol 495:53–69

Cieslik EC, Zilles K, Kurth F, Eickhoff SB (2010) Dissociating bottom-up and top-down processes in a manual stimulus–response compatibility task. J Neurophysiol 104:1472–1483

Cieslik EC, Zilles K, Caspers S, Roski C, Kellermann TS, Jakobs O, Langner R, Laird AR, Fox PT, Eickhoff SB (2013) Is there “one” DLPFC in cognitive action control? Evidence for heterogeneity from co-activation-based parcellation. Cereb Cortex 23:2677–2689

Cieslik EC, Mueller VI, Eickhoff CR, Langner R, Eickhoff SB (2015) Three key regions for supervisory attentional control: evidence from neuroimaging meta-analyses. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 48:22–34

Clos M, Amunts K, Laird AR, Fox PT, Eickhoff SB (2013) Tackling the multifunctional nature of Broca’s region meta-analytically: co-activation-based parcellation of area 44. Neuroimage 83:174–188

Cole MW, Schneider W (2007) The cognitive control network: integrated cortical regions with dissociable functions. Neuroimage 37:343–360

Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2002) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:201–215

Crone EA, Wendelken C, Donohue SE, Bunge SA (2006) Neural evidence for dissociable components of task-switching. Cereb Cortex 16:475–486

De Baene W, Brass M (2011) Cue-switch effects do not rely on the same neural systems as task-switch effects. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 11:600–607

Dell’Acqua R, Jolicoeur P, Vespignani F, Toffanin P (2005) Central processing overlap modulates P3 latency. Exp Brain Res 165:54–682

Deprez S, Vandenbulcke M, Peeters R, Emsell L, Amant F, Sunaert S (2013) The functional neuroanatomy of multitasking: combining dual tasking with a short term memory task. Neuropsychologia 51:2251–2260

Derrfuss J, Brass M, Neumann J, von Cramon DY (2005) Involvement of the inferior frontal junction in cognitive control: meta-analyses of switching and Stroop studies. Hum Brain Mapp 25:22–34

Dibbets P, Evers EA, Hurks PP, Bakker K, Jolles J (2010) Differential brain activation patterns in adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) associated with task switching. Neuropsychology 24:413–423

DiGirolamo GJ, Kramer AF, Barad V, Cepeda NJ, Weissman DH, Milham MP, Wszalek TM, Cohen NJ, Banich MT, Webb A, Belopolsky AV, McAuley E (2001) General and task-specific frontal lobe recruitment in older adults during executive processes: a fMRI investigation of task-switching. NeuroReport 12:2065–2071

Dosenbach NU, Visscher KM, Palmer ED, Miezin FM, Wenger KK, Kang HC, Burgund ED, Grimes AL, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE (2006) A core system for the implementation of task sets. Neuron 50:799–812

Dosenbach NU, Fair DA, Miezin FM, Cohen AL, Wenger KK, Dosenbach RA, Fox MD, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Raichle ME, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE (2007) Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:11073–11078

Dove A, Pollmann S, Schubert T, Wiggins CJ, von Cramon DY (2000) Prefrontal cortex activation in task switching: an event-related fMRI study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 9:103–109

Dreher JC, Grafman J (2003) Dissociating the roles of the rostral anterior cingulate and the lateral prefrontal cortices in performing two tasks simultaneously or successively. Cereb Cortex 13:329–339

Duncan J (2010) The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behaviour. Trends Cogn Sci 14:172–179

Dux PE, Ivanoff J, Asplund CL, Marois R (2006) Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved FMRI. Neuron 56:1109–1120

Eckert MA, Menon V, Walczak A, Ahlstrom J, Denslow S, Horwitz A, Dubno JR (2009) At the heart of the ventral attention system: the right anterior insula. Hum Brain Mapp 30:2530–2541

Eickhoff SB, Stephan KE, Mohlberg H, Grefkes C, Fink GR, Amunts K, Zilles K (2005) A new SPM toolbox for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data. Neuroimage 25:1325–1335

Eickhoff SB, Paus T, Caspers S, Grosbas MH, Evans AC, Zilles K, Amunts K (2007) Assignment of functional activations to probabilistic cytoarchitectonic areas revisited. Neuroimage 36:511–521

Eickhoff SB, Laird AR, Grefkes C, Wang LE, Zilles K, Fox PT (2009) Coordinate- based activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of neuroimaging data: a random-effects approach based on empirical estimates of spatial uncertainty. Hum Brain Mapp 30:2907–2926

Eickhoff SB, Bzdok D, Laird AR, Kurth F, Fox PT (2012) Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis revisited. Neuroimage 59:2349–2361

Erickson KI, Colcombe SJ, Wadhwa R, Bherer L, Peterson MS, Scalf PE, Kramer AF (2005) Neural correlates of dual-task performance after minimizing task-preparation. Neuroimage 28:967–979

Gazes Y, Rakitin BC, Habeck C, Steffener J, Stern Y (2012) Age differences of multivariate network expressions during task-switching and their associations with behavior. Neuropsychologia 50:3509–3518

Genon S, Li H, Fan L, Müller VI, Cieslik EC, Hoffstaedter F, Reid AT, Langner R, Grefkes C, Fox PT, Moebus S, Caspers S, Amunts K, Jiang T, Eickhoff SB (2017) The right dorsal premotor mosaic: organization, functions, and connectivity. Cereb Cortex 27:2095–2110

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Geyer S (2004) The microstructural border between the motor and the cognitive domain in the human cerebral cortex. Adv Anat Embryol Cell Biol 174:1–89

Göbel SM, Johansen-Berg H, Behrens T, Rushworth MF (2004) Response-selection-related parietal activation during number comparison. J Cogn Neurosci 16:1536–1551

Goffaux P, Phillips NA, Sinai M, Pushkar D (2006) Behavioural and electrophysiological measures of task switching during single and mixed-task conditions. Biol Psychol 72:278–290

Grafton ST (2010) The cognitive neuroscience of prehension: recent developments. Exp Brain Res 204:475–491

Green JJ, McDonald JJ (2008) Electrical neuroimaging reveals timing of attentional control activity in human brain. PLoS Biol 6:730–738

Grefkes C, Geyer S, Schormann T, Roland P, Zilles K (2001) Human somatosensory area 2: observer-independent cytoarchitectonic mapping, interindividual variability, and population map. NeuroImage 14:617–631

Grosbras MH, Paus T (2003) Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human frontal eye field facilitates visual awareness. Eur J Neurosci 18:3121–3126

Gruber O, Karch S, Schlueter EK, Falkai P, Goschke T (2006) Neural mechanisms of advance preparation in task switching. Neuroimage 31:887–895

Gu BM, Park JY, Kang DH, Lee SJ, Yoo SY, Jo HJ, Choi CH, Lee JM, Kwon JS (2008) Neural correlates of cognitive inflexibility during task-switching in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Brain 131:155–164

Halari R, Simic M, Pariante CM, Papadopoulos A, Cleare A, Brammer M, Fombonne E, Rubia K (2009) Reduced activation in lateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate during attention and cognitive control functions in medication-naïve adolescents with depression compared to controls. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 50:307–316

Hardwick RM, Rottschy C, Miall RC, Eickhoff SB (2013) A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain. Neuroimage 67:283–297

Hartley AA, Jonides J, Sylvester CY (2011) Dual-task processing in younger and older adults: similarities and differences revealed by fMRI. Brain Cogn 75:281–291

Hartstra E, Kühn S, Verguts T, Brass M (2011) The implementation of verbal instructions: an fMRI study. Hum Brain Mapp 32:1811–1824

Hartstra E, Waszak F, Brass M (2012) The implementation of verbal instructions: dissociating motor preparation from the formation of stimulus–response associations. Neuroimage 63:1143–1153

Hartwigsen G, Siebner HR (2015) Joint contribution of left dorsal premotor cortex and supramarginal gyrus to rapid action reprogramming. Brain Stimul 8:945–952

Hedden T, Gabrieli JD (2010) Shared and selective neural correlates of inhibition, facilitation, and shifting processes during executive control. Neuroimage 51:421–431

Hein G, Schubert T (2004) Aging and input processing in dual-task situations. Psychol Aging 19:416–432

Herath P, Klingberg T, Young J, Amunts K, Roland P (2001) Neural correlates of dual task interference can be dissociated from those of divided attention: an fMRI study. Cereb Cortex 11:796–805

Hesselmann G, Flandin G, Dehaene S (2011) Probing the cortical network underlying the psychological refractory period: a combined EEG-fMRI study. Neuroimage 56:1608–1621

Higo T, Mars RB, Boorman ED, Buch ER, Rushworth MF (2011) Distributed and causal influence of frontal operculum in task control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:4230–4235

Hirsch P, Nolden S, Koch I (2017) Higher-order cognitive control in dual tasks: evidence from task-pair switching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 43(3):569–580

Hirsch P, Nolden S, Declerck M, Koch I (2018) Common cognitive control processes underlying performance in task-switching and dual-task contexts. Adv Cogn Psychol 14:62–74

Hoffstaedter F, Grefkes C, Caspers S, Roski C, Palomero-Gallagher N, Laird AR, Fox PT, Eickhoff SB (2014) The role of anterior midcingulate cortex in cognitive motor control: evidence from functional connectivity analyses. Hum Brain Mapp 35:2741–2753

Hoshi E, Tanji J (2000) Integration of target and body-part information in the premotor cortex when planning action. Nature 408:466–470

Houtkamp R, Braun J (2010) Cortical response to task-relevant stimuli presented outside the primary focus of attention. J Cogn Neurosci 22:1980–1992

Hyafil A, Summerfield C, Koechlin E (2009) Two mechanisms for task switching in the prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci 29:5135–5142

Isoda M, Hikosaka O (2007) Switching from automatic to controlled action by monkey medial frontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 10:240–248

Jamadar S, Hughes M, Fulham WR, Michie PT, Karayanidis F (2010a) The spatial and temporal dynamics of anticipatory preparation and response inhibition in task-switching. Neuroimage 51:432–449

Jamadar S, Michie P, Karayanidis F (2010b) Compensatory mechanisms underlie intact task-switching performance in schizophrenia. Neuropsychologia 48:1305–1323

Jiang Y (2004) Resolving dual-task interference: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 22:748–754

Jiang Y, Saxe R, Kanwisher N (2004) Functional magnetic resonance imaging provides new constraints on theories of the psychological refractory period. Psychol Sci 15:390–396

Jost K, De Baene W, Koch I, Brass M (2013) A review of the role of cue processing in task switching. J Psychol 221:5–14

Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice Hall, New York

Karayanidis F, Coltheart M, Michie PT, Murphy K (2003) Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory and poststimulus components of task switching. Psychophysiology 40:329–348

Kieffaber PD, Hetrick WP (2005) Event-related potential correlates of task switching and switch costs. Psychophysiology 42:56–71

Kiesel A, Steinhauser M, Wendt M, Falkenstein M, Jost K, Philipp AM, Koch I (2010) Control and interference in task switching-a review. Psychol Bull 136:849–874

Kim C, Cilles SE, Johnson NF, Gold BT (2012) Domain general and domain preferential brain regions associated with different types of task switching: a meta-analysis. Hum Brain Mapp 33:130–142

Kimberg DY, Aguirre GK, D’Esposito M (2000) Modulation of task-related neural activity in task-switching: an fMRI study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 10:189–196

Kliegl R, Mayr U, Krampe RT (1994) Time–accuracy functions for determining process and person differences: an application to cognitive aging. Cogn Psychol 26:134–164

Koch I, Allport A (2006) Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Mem Cogn 34:433–444

Koch I, Gade M, Schuch S, Philipp AM (2010) The role of inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychon Bull Rev 17:1–14

Koch I, Poljac E, Müller H, Kiesel A (2018) Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking: an integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychol Bull 144:557–583

Koechlin E, Jubault T (2006) Broca’s area and the hierarchical organization of human behavior. Neuron 50:963–974

Koechlin E, Basso G, Pietrini P, Panzer S, Grafman J (1999) The role of the anterior prefrontal cortex in human cognition. Nature 399:148–151

Kouneiher F, Charron S, Koechlin E (2009) Motivation and cognitive control in the human prefrontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 12:939–945

Kübler S, Reimer CB, Strobach T, Schubert T (2017) The impact of free-order and sequential-order instructions on task-order regulation in dual tasks. Psychol Res 82(1):40–53

Kurth F, Zilles K, Fox PT, Laird AR, Eickhoff SB (2010) A link between the systems: functional differentiation and integration within the human insula revealed by meta-analysis. Brain Struct Funct 5–6:519–534

Lancaster JL, Tordesillas-Gutierrez D, Martinez M, Salinas F, Evans A, Zilles K, Mazziotta JC, Fox PT (2007) Bias between MNI and Talairach coordinates analyzed using the ICBM-152 brain template. Hum Brain Mapp 28:1194–1205

Langner R, Eickhoff SB (2013) Sustaining attention to simple tasks: a meta-analytic review of the neural mechanisms of vigilant attention. Psychol Bull 139:870–900

Langner R, Kellermann T, Boers F, Sturm W, Willmes K, Eickhoff SB (2011) Modality-specific perceptual expectations selectively modulate baseline activity in auditory, somatosensory, and visual cortices. Cereb Cortex 21:2850–2862

Langner R, Kellermann T, Eickhoff SB, Boers F, Chatterjee A, Willmes K, Sturm W (2012) Staying responsive to the world: modality-specific and -nonspecific contributions to speeded auditory, tactile, and visual stimulus detection. Hum Brain Mapp 33:398–418

Langner R, Cieslik EC, Behrwind SD, Roski C, Caspers S, Amunts K, Eickhoff SB (2015) Aging and response conflict solution: behavioural and functional connectivity changes. Brain Struct Funct 220:1739–1757

Langner R, Leiberg S, Hoffstaedter F, Eickhoff SB (2018) Towards a human self-regulation system: common and distinct neural signatures of emotional and behavioural control. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 90:400–410

Liston C, Matalon S, Hare TA, Davidson MC, Casey BJ (2006) Anterior cingulate and posterior parietal cortices are sensitive to dissociable forms of conflict in a task-switching paradigm. Neuron 50:643–653

Logan GD, Bundesen C (2003) Clever homunculus: is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:575–599

Logan GD, Gordon RD (2001) Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychol Rev 108:393–434

Luks TL, Simpson GV, Feiwell RJ, Miller WL (2002) Evidence for anterior cingulate cortex involvement in monitoring preparatory attentional set. Neuroimage 17:792–802

Luria R, Meiran N (2003) Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:556–574

Madden DJ, Costello MC, Dennis NA, Davis SW, Shepler AM, Spaniol J, Bucur B, Cabeza R (2010) Adult age differences in functional connectivity during executive control. Neuroimage 52:643–657

Marois R, Ivanoff J (2005) Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends Cogn Sci 9:296–305

Marois R, Larson JM, Chun MM, Shima D (2005) Response-specific sources of dual-task interference in human premotor cortex. Psychol Res 11:1–12

Matelli M, Camarda R, Glickstein M, Rizzolatti G (1986) Afferent and efferent projections of the inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey. J Comp Neurol 251:281–298

Mayr U, Kliegl R (1993) Sequential and coordinative complexity: age-based processing limitations in figural transformations. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 19:1297–1320

Mayr U, Kliegl R, Krampe R (1996) Sequential and coordinative processing dynamics in figural transformation across the life span. Cognition 59:61–90

Meiran N (2000) Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychol Res 63:234–249

Meiran N, Chorev Z, Sapir A (2000) Component processes in task switching. Cogn Psychol 41:211–253

Meyer DE, Kieras DE (1997a) A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: I. Basic mechanisms. Psychol Rev 104:3–65

Meyer DE, Kieras DE (1997b) A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: 2. Accounts of the psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychol Rev 104:749–791

Miller EK, Cohen JD (2001) An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci 24:167–202

Mochizuki H, Tashiro M, Gyoba J, Suzuki M, Okamura N, Itoh M, Yanai K (2007) Brain activity associated with dual-task management differs depending on the combinations of response modalities. Brain Res 1172:82–92

Monsell S (2003) Task switching. Trends Cogn Sci 7:134–140

Mostofsky SH, Simmonds DJ (2008) Response inhibition and response selection: two sides of the same coin. J Cogn Neurosci 20:751–761

Murata A, Gallese V, Luppino G, Kaseda M, Sakata H (2000) Selectivity for the shape, size, and orientation of objects for grasping in neurons of monkey parietal area AIP. J Neurophysiol 83:2580–2601

Nachev P, Kennard C, Husain M (2008) Functional role of the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:856–869

Nakayama Y, Yamagata T, Tanji J, Hoshi E (2008) Transformation of a virtual action plan into a motor plan in the premotor cortex. J Neurosci 8:10287–10297

Navon D, Miller J (2002) Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cogn Psychol 44:193–251

Nee DE, Kastner S, Brown JW (2011) Functional heterogeneity of conflict, error, task-switching, and unexpectedness effects within medial prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage 54:528–540

Nelson JK, Reuter-Lorenz PA, Persson J, Sylvester CY, Jonides J (2009) Mapping interference resolution across task domains: a shared control process in left inferior frontal gyrus. Brain Res 1256:92–100

Nichols T, Brett M, Andersson J, Wager T, Poline JB (2005) Valid inference with the minimum statistic. Neuroimage 25:653–660

Nicholson R, Karayanidis F, Poboka D, Heathcote A, Michie PT (2005) Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory task-switching processes. Psychophysiology 42:540–554

Pashler H (1994) Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychol Bull 116:220–244

Pashler H (2000) Task switching and multitask performance. In: Monsell S, Driver J (eds) Attention and performance XVIII: control of mental processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 277–307

Pastor-Bernier A, Tremblay E, Cisek P (2012) Dorsal premotor cortex is involved in switching motor plans. Front Neuroeng 5:1–15

Paus T (1996) Location and function of the human frontal eyefield: a selective review. Neuropsychologia 34:475–483

Paus T (2001) Primate anterior cingulate cortex: where motor control, drive and cognition interface. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:417–424

Petrides M (1997) Visuo-motor conditional associative learning after frontal and temporal lesions in the human brain. Neuropsychologia 7:989–997

Philipp AM, Weidner R, Koch I, Fink G (2013) Differential roles of inferior frontal and inferior parietal cortex in task switching: evidence from stimulus-categorization switching and response-modality switching. Hum Brain Mapp 34:1919–1920

Piguet C, Sterpenich V, Desseilles M, Cojan Y, Bertschy G, Vuilleumier P (2013) Neural substrates of cognitive switching and inhibition in a face processing task. Neuroimage 82:489–499

Poulsen C, Luu P, Davey C, Tucker DM (2005) Dynamics of task sets: evidence from dense-array event-related potentials. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 24:133–154

Ptak R (2011) The frontoparietal attention network of the human brain: action, saliency, and a priority map of the environment. Neuroscientist 18:502–515

Ravizza SM, Carter CS (2008) Shifting set about task switching: behavioral and neural evidence for distinct forms of cognitive flexibility. Neuropsychologia 46:2924–2935

Rizzolatti G, Luppino G (2001) The cortical motor system. Neuron 31:889–901

Rizzolatti G, Luppino G, Matelli M (1998) The organization of the cortical motor system: new concepts. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 106:283–296

Rodehacke S, Mennigen E, Müller KU, Ripke S, Jacob MJ, Hübner T, Schmidt DH, Goschke T, Smolka MN (2014) Interindividual differences in mid-adolescents in error monitoring and post-error adjustment. PLoS One 9:e88957

Rogers RD, Monsell S (1995) The costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen 124:207–231

Rottschy C, Langner R, Dogan I, Reetz K, Laird AR, Schulz JB, Fox PT, Eickhoff SB (2012) Modelling neural correlates of working memory: a coordinate-based meta-analysis. Neuroimage 60:830–846

Rubinstein J, Meyer DE, Evans JE (2001) Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:763–797

Ruge H, Brass M, Koch I, Rubin O, Meiran N, von Cramon DY (2005) Advance preparation and stimulus-induced interference in cued task switching: further insights from BOLD fMRI. Neuropsychologia 43:340–355

Ruge H, Braver T, Meiran N (2009) Attention, intention, and strategy in preparatory control. Neuropsychologia 47:1670–1685

Ruge H, Müller SC, Braver TS (2010) Anticipating the consequences of action: an fMRI study of intention-based task preparation. Psychophysiology 47:1019–1027

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ruge H, Jamadar S, Zimmermann U, Karayanidis F (2013) The many faces of preparatory control in task switching: reviewing a decade of fMRI research. Hum Brain Mapp 34:12–35

Rushworth MF, Taylor PC (2006) TMS in the parietal cortex: updating representations for attention and action. Neuropsychologia 44:2700–2716

Rushworth MF, Paus T, Sipila PK (2001) Attention systems and the organization of the human parietal cortex. J Neurosci 15:5262–5271

Rushworth MF, Hadland KA, Paus T, Sipila PK (2002) Role of the human medial frontal cortex in task switching: a combined fMRI and TMS study. J Neurophysiol 87:2577–2592

Rushworth MF, Johansen-Berg H, Göbel SM, Devlin JT (2003) The left parietal and premotor cortices: motor attention and selection. Neuroimage 20(Suppl 1):89–100

Sadato N, Yonekura Y, Waki A, Yamada H, Ishii Y (1997) Role of the supplementary motor area and the right premotor cortex in the coordination of bimanual finger movements. J Neurosci 17:9667–9674

Savine AC, Braver TS (2010) Motivated cognitive control: reward incentives modulate preparatory neural activity during task-switching. J Neurosci 30:10294–10305

Scheperjans F, Eickhoff SB, Homke L, Mohlberg H, Hermann K, Amunts K, Zilles K (2008a) Probabilistic maps, morphometry, and variability of cytoarchitectonic areas in the human superior parietal cortex. Cereb Cortex 18:2141–2157

Scheperjans F, Hermann K, Eickhoff SB, Amunts K, Schleicher A, Zilles K (2008b) Observer-independent cytoarchitectonic mapping of the human superior parietal cortex. Cereb Cortex 18:846–867

Schubert T (1999) Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:408–425

Schubert T, Szameitat AJ (2003) Functional neuroanatomy of interference in overlapping dual tasks: an fMRI study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 17:733–746

Schubotz RI, von Cramon DY (2003) Functional–anatomical concepts of human premotor cortex: evidence from fMRI and PET studies. Neuroimage 20:120–131

Schuch S, Koch I (2003) The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:92–105

Schumacher EH, Elston PA, D’Esposito M (2003) Neural evidence for representation-specific response selection. J Cogn Neurosci 15:1111–1121

Shi Y, Zhou X, Müller HJ, Schubert T (2010) The neural implementation of task rule activation in the task-cuing paradigm: an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 51:1253–1264

Shomstein S, Yantis S (2004) Control of attention shifts between vision and audition in human cortex. J Neurosci 24:10702–10706

Shulman GL, Astafiev SV, Franke D, Pope DL, Snyder AZ, McAvoy MP, Corbetta M (2009) Interaction of stimulus-driven reorienting and expectation in ventral and dorsal frontoparietal and basal ganglia cortical networks. J Neurosci 29:4392–4407

Sigman M, Dehaene S (2006) Dynamics of the central bottleneck: dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biol 4:e220

Sigman M, Dehaene S (2008) Brain mechanisms of serial and parallel processing during dual-task performance. J Neurosci 28:7585–7598

Smith AB, Taylor E, Brammer M, Rubia K (2004) Neural correlates of switching set as measured in fast, event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp 21:247–256

Sohn MH, Ursu S, Anderson JR, Stenger VA, Carter CS (2000) The role of prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex in task switching. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:13448–13453

Soutschek A, Taylor PC, Müller HJ, Schubert T (2013) Dissociable networks control conflict during perception and response selection: a transcranial magnetic stimulation Study. J Neurosci 33:5647–5654

Stark A, Zohary E (2008) Parietal mapping of visuomotor transformations during human tool grasping. Cereb Cortex 18:2358–2368

Stelzel C, Schumacher EH, Schubert T, D’Esposito M (2006) The neural effect of stimulus–response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychol Res 70:514–525

Stelzel C, Kraft A, Brandt SA, Schubert T (2008) Dissociable neural effects of task order control and task set maintenance during dual-task performance. J Cogn Neurosci 20:613–628

Stevens MC, Kiehl KA, Pearlson G, Calhoun VD (2007) Functional neural circuits for mental timekeeping. Hum Brain Mapp 28:394–408

Stuss DT, Alexander MP, Shallice T, Picton TW, Binns MA, Macdonald R, Borowiec A, Katz DI (2005) Multiple frontal systems controlling response speed. Neuropsychologia 43:396–417

Swick D, Ashley V, Turken AU (2008) Left inferior frontal gyrus is critical for response inhibition. BMC Neurosci 9:102

Szameitat AJ, Schubert T, Müller K, Von Cramon DY (2002) Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI. J Cogn Neurosci 14:1184–1199

Szameitat AJ, Lepsien J, von Cramon DY, Sterr A, Schubert T (2006) Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: an event-related fMRI study. Psychol Res 70:541–552

Tombu M, Jolicoeur P (2003) A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:3–18

Tombu MN, Asplund CL, Dux PE, Godwin D, Martin JW, Marois R (2011) A Unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:13426–13431

Tosoni A, Shulman GL, Pope AL, McAvoy MP, Corbetta M (2012) Distinct representations for shifts of spatial attention and changes of reward contingencies in the human brain. Cortex 49:1733–1749

Turkeltaub PE, Eden GF, Jones KM, Zeffiro TA (2002) Meta-analysis of the functional neuroanatomy of single-word reading: method and validation. Neuroimage 16:765–780

Turkeltaub PE, Eickhoff SB, Laird AR, Fox M, Wiener M, Fox P (2012) Minimizing within-experiment and within-group effects in activation likelihood estimation meta-analyses. Hum Brain Mapp 33:1–13

Ullsperger M, Danielmeier C, Jocham G (2014) Neurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive behavior. Physiol Rev 94:35–79

Vandenberghe R, Gillebert CR (2009) Parcellation of parietal cortex: convergence between lesion-symptom mapping and mapping of the intact functioning brain. Behav Brain Res 199:171–182

Verbruggen F, Aron AR, Stevens MA, Chambers CD (2010) Theta burst stimulation dissociates attention and action updating in human inferior frontal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:13966–13971

Verhaeghen P, Steitz DW, Sliwinski MJ, Cerella J (2003) Aging and dual-task performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging 18:443–460

Vetter P, Butterworth B, Bahrami B (2011) A candidate for the attentional bottleneck: set-size specific modulation of the right TPJ during attentive enumeration. J Cogn Neurosci 23:728–736

Wager TD, Jonides J, Reading S (2004) Neuroimaging studies of shifting attention: a meta-analysis. Neuroimage 22:1679–1693

Wager TD, Jonides J, Smith EE, Nichols TE (2005) Toward a taxonomy of attention shifting: individual differences in fMRI during multiple shift types. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 5:127–143

Wasylyshyn C, Verhaeghen P, Sliwinski MJ (2011) Aging and task switching: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging 26:15–20

Welford A (1952) The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance: a review and a theory. Br J Psychol 43:2–9

Wilkinson DT, Halligan PW, Marshall JC, Büchel C, Dolan RJ (2001) Switching between the forest and the trees: brain systems involved in local/global changed-level judgments. Neuroimage 13:56–67

Witt ST, Stevens MC (2012) Overcoming residual interference in mental set switching: neural correlates and developmental trajectory. Neuroimage 62:2055–2064

Witt ST, Stevens MC (2013) fMRI task parameters influence hemodynamic activity in regions implicated in mental set switching. Neuroimage 65:139–151

Woodcock KA, Humphreys GW, Oliver C, Hansen PC (2010) Neural correlates of task switching in paternal 15q11-q13 deletion Prader–Willi syndrome. Brain Res 1363:128–142

Wylie G, Allport A (2000) Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”. Psychol Res 63:212–233

Wylie GR, Javitt DC, Foxe JJ (2006) Jumping the gun: is effective preparation contingent upon anticipatory activation in task-relevant neural circuitry? Cereb Cortex 16:394–404

Yantis S, Schwarzbach J, Serences JT, Carlson RL, Steinmetz MA, Pekar JJ, Courtney SM (2002) Transient neural activity in human parietal cortex during spatial attention shifts. Nat Neurosci 5:995–1002

Yeung N, Nystrom LE, Aronson JA, Cohen JD (2006) Between-task competition and cognitive control in task switching. J Neurosci 26:1429–1438

Yoshida W, Funakoshi H, Ishii S (2010) Hierarchical rule switching in prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage 50:314–322

zu Eulenburg P, Caspers S, Roski C, Eickhoff SB (2012) Meta-analytical definition and functional connectivity of the human vestibular cortex. Neuroimage 60:162–169

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all contacted authors who contributed results of relevant contrasts not explicitly reported in the original publications, and we apologize to all authors whose eligible papers we might have missed.

This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (LA 3071/3-1 to R.L. and S.B.E.; EI 816/4-1 to S.B.E.), the National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH074457 to S.B.E.), the Helmholtz Portfolio Theme “Supercomputing and Modeling for the Human Brain” (S.B.E.), and the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant agreement no. 604102 (S.B.E.).

Author information

Britta Worringer and Robert Langner contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Clinical and Cognitive Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

Britta Worringer & Ferdinand C. Binkofski

Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Center for Health and Society, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

Britta Worringer

Institute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, Düsseldorf, Germany

Robert Langner & Simon B. Eickhoff

Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany

Robert Langner, Simon B. Eickhoff & Claudia R. Eickhoff

Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstr. 17-19, 52066, Aachen, Germany

Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

Claudia R. Eickhoff

Institute for Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-4), Research Center Jülich, Pauwelsstr. 30, Jülich, Germany

Ferdinand C. Binkofski

Jülich Aachen Research Alliance JARA-BRAIN, Pauwelsstr. 30, Aachen, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Britta Worringer or Robert Langner .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 186 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (docx 49 kb), appendix 1: overview of all task-switching experiments included in the analysis.

• CTI cue–trial interval, ITI intertrial interval, vis visual, man manual
• a No significant switch costs were observed, b univalent switches-repetitions, c bivalent switch repetitions, d incongruent shifting > neutral non-shifting, e neural shifting > incongruent non-shifting, f S–R at T0, g S–R at T1, h shift > repeat, i high-response conflict switches > low-response conflict switches, j high-stimulus conflict switches > low-stimulus conflict switches, k color switch targets > color repeat targets, l switch targets > speed repeat targets, m rule switch > exploitation, n meta-rule switch > exploitation

Appendix 2: Overview of all dual-tasking experiments included in the analysis

• vis visual, man manual, aud auditory
• a Younger participants, b older participants, c Set-4, d Set-8, e Set-4, f Set-8, g high load > single task, h low load > single task

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Worringer, B., Langner, R., Koch, I. et al. Common and distinct neural correlates of dual-tasking and task-switching: a meta-analytic review and a neuro-cognitive processing model of human multitasking. Brain Struct Funct 224 , 1845–1869 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-019-01870-4

Download citation

Received : 29 July 2017

Accepted : 27 March 2019

Published : 29 April 2019

Issue Date : 01 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-019-01870-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Multitasking
• Cognitive control
• Executive function
• ALE meta-analysis

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us

Gray matter loss relates to dual task gait in Lewy body disorders and aging

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Medicine, Division of Neurology, University of Alberta, 7-112J CSB, 11350-83 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G3, Canada.
• 2 Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute (NMHI), University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
• 3 Department of Psychiatry, Douglas Mental Health University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
• 4 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
• 5 CERVO Brain Research Center, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
• 6 Cumming School of Medicine, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
• 7 Department of Medicine (Division of Neurology), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
• 8 Hurvitz Brain Sciences Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
• 9 Movement Disorders Research and Rehabilitation Centre, Carespace Health and Wellness, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
• 10 Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
• 11 Gait and Brain Lab, Parkwood Institute Lawson Health Research Institute, London, ON, Canada.
• 12 Department of Medicine and Division of Geriatric Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, ON, Canada.
• 13 Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
• 14 Department of Medicine, Division of Neurology, University of Alberta, 7-112J CSB, 11350-83 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G3, Canada. [email protected].
• 15 Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute (NMHI), University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. [email protected].
• PMID: 37902878
• DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-12052-y

Background: Within the spectrum of Lewy body disorders (LBD), both Parkinson's disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) are characterized by gait and balance disturbances, which become more prominent under dual-task (DT) conditions. The brain substrates underlying DT gait variations, however, remain poorly understood in LBD.

Objective: To investigate the relationship between gray matter volume loss and DT gait variations in LBD.

Methods: Seventy-nine participants including cognitively unimpaired PD, PD with mild cognitive impairment, PD with dementia (PDD), or DLB and 20 cognitively unimpaired controls were examined across a multi-site study. PDD and DLB were grouped together for analyses. Differences in gait speed between single and DT conditions were quantified by dual task cost (DTC). Cortical, subcortical, ventricle, and cerebellum brain volumes were obtained using FreeSurfer. Linear regression models were used to examine the relationship between gray matter volumes and DTC.

Results: Smaller amygdala and total cortical volumes, and larger ventricle volumes were associated with a higher DTC across LBD and cognitively unimpaired controls. No statistically significant interaction between group and brain volumes were found. Adding cognitive and motor covariates or white matter hyperintensity volumes separately to the models did not affect brain volume and DTC associations.

Conclusion: Gray matter volume loss is associated with worse DT gait performance compared to single task gait, across cognitively unimpaired controls through and the LBD spectrum. Impairment in DT gait performance may be driven by age-related cortical neurodegeneration.

Keywords: Dual task; Gait; Lewy body disorder: aging; MRI.

© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Synonyms and antonyms of task in English

Word of the Day

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

any one of the eight least valuable pieces in the game of chess

Reunions and housewarmings (Words for different parties)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists

Add ${headword} to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Synonyms of task

• as in purpose
• as in to entrust
• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Thesaurus Definition of task

 (Entry 1 of 2)

Synonyms & Similar Words

• responsibility
• undertaking
• participation
• involvement

Thesaurus Definition of task  (Entry 2 of 2)

Synonym Chooser

How does the noun task contrast with its synonyms?

Some common synonyms of task are assignment , chore , duty , job , and stint . While all these words mean "a piece of work to be done," task implies work imposed by a person in authority or an employer or by circumstance.

When can assignment be used instead of task ?

The words assignment and task can be used in similar contexts, but assignment implies a definite limited task assigned by one in authority.

When might chore be a better fit than task ?

While in some cases nearly identical to task , chore implies a minor routine activity necessary for maintaining a household or farm.

When would duty be a good substitute for task ?

The meanings of duty and task largely overlap; however, duty implies an obligation to perform or responsibility for performance.

Where would job be a reasonable alternative to task ?

The synonyms job and task are sometimes interchangeable, but job applies to a piece of work voluntarily performed; it may sometimes suggest difficulty or importance.

In what contexts can stint take the place of task ?

While the synonyms stint and task are close in meaning, stint implies a carefully allotted or measured quantity of assigned work or service.

Phrases Containing task

• take to task

Articles Related to task

Can 'Task' Be Used as a Verb?

Taking a usage peeve to task

Thesaurus Entries Near task

Cite this entry.

“Task.” Merriam-Webster.com Thesaurus , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/task. Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.

More from Merriam-Webster on task

Nglish: Translation of task for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of task for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Related Words and Phrases

Bottom_desktop desktop:[300x250].

• Pop culture
• Writing tips
• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day

Synonym of the Day

• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Grammar Coach ™
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips

synonyms for task

• responsibility
• undertaking
• daily grind
• fun and games
• long row to hoe

See also synonyms for: tasked tasking tasks

antonyms for task

Most relevant

• irresponsibility
• entertainment
• good health
• unemployment

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Copyright © 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.

How to use task in a sentence

They provide response playbooks, help assign tasks to the correct team members, and help capture records of how and when your company took action.

The beauty of it all is that once your papers are organized, your space is cleaner and your tasks are accomplished quicker.

A hashtag challenge is a unique TikTok’s content format where brands ask users to post a certain task using a specific hashtag.

Today’s technologies aren’t up to the task of deep decarbonization.

You can also right-click on the app and choose End task from there.

In 2011 LGBT media outlet Queerty took the app to task for allegedly deleting accounts that made reference to being trans.

Detectives with a fugitive task force caught up with Polanco and a friend on a Bronx street in the early afternoon.

Sabrine is a trained lawyer, likely a helpful quality when your task is to push politicians.

It was a complex task they were asked to do, and every cultural and experiential advantage would be required.

Before dying in 1219, Marshal would begin the task of rebuilding England after decades of war.

And it was no light task , then, for six hundred men to keep the peace on a thousand miles of frontier.

Will the new issues promptly retire when their special task is over?

He sighed as he laid the papers on the table; for he thought the task would be a harder one than even his own immolation.

Having accomplished his task within three months Datto Mandi withdrew with all his men, except two who wished to settle at Pardo.

Through the beautiful, windy autumn days, he labored at his difficult task , the task of telling a story.

Choose the synonym for crotchety

Words Related To task

• Mom and pops
• corporations
• establishments
• fly-by-night operations
• institutions
• organizations
• partnerships
• shoestring operations
• safekeeping
• call the signals
• give directions
• give orders
• lay down the law
• put foot down
• requisition
• take charge
• take the lead
• calls the signals
• gives directions
• gives orders
• lies down the law
• puts foot down
• requisitions
• takes charge
• corporation
• establishment
• involvement
• organization
• commissions
• commitments
• engagements
• minding the stores
• obligations
• occupations
• taking care of businesses
• undertakings
• minding the store
• taking care of business
• performance
• pet project
• proposition
• speculation

enterprises

• follow throughs
• performances
• pet projects
• propositions
• speculations
• Synonyms For
• Antonyms For
• Related Words

A Dual Book Launch with Peter Carlaftes & Kat Georges

New York Public Library Jefferson Market Branch and Three Rooms Press present 

Celebrating the release of their new poetry collections

LIFE IN THE PAST LANE and AWE AND OTHER WORDS LIKE WOW

with special guests

Andrei Codrescu • Uche Nduka • Puma Perl

Karen Hildebrand • Jane LeCroy • Sophie Malleret

The event takes place in the Willa Cather program room on the first floor

High Praise for Peter Carlaftes and LIFE IN THE PAST LANE

“Audacious!” The New York Times Book Review

ˆ A stunning work of memoir rendered in totally original poetry .

You won't find any of the artifices of academic verse here. This is real.

These are to-the-bone poems .” —W.K. Stratton, author, Los Angeles Times bestseller The Wild Bunch

“ Peter Carlaftes is an energetic, generous, and anarchic poet. His iconoclasm is priceless. ” —Uche Nduka, author, Bainbridge Island Notebook

“ Fun and entertaining, faster than on the road of prosaic tail lights. A shift into high .” —Charles Plymell, poet, Benzedrine Highway

High Praise for AWE AND OTHER WORDS LIKE WOW

“Brilliant .” —Library Journal

“ This book dazzles with its visionary witnessing, spiritual epiphanies, refreshing humor, anthems,  and odes to love, reminding the reader that all life is holy .” —Lisa Panepinto, poet, On This Borrowed Bike

“ Georges is a keen observer of urban life. It’s not that she doesn’t see the grit, but she hears a siren as a soprano .” —Karen Hildebrand, poet, Crossing Pleasure Avenue

“ This is poetry at its finest. ” Richard Modiano, Director Emeritus Beyond Baroque Literary/Arts Center 

ABOUT THE POETS

Peter Carlaftes is author of five books including the poetry collections Drunkyard Dog and I Fold With the Hand I Was Dealt and two collections of plays: Teatrophy and Triumph for Rent. He is co-editor of the annual contemporary dada journal, Maintenant and editor of The Faking Of The President: Nineteen Stories of White House Noir. His poetry has recently appeared in NYC from the Inside, Love, Love, Chorus: A Literary Mixtape and many more. He is co-director of Three Rooms Press.

Kat Georges is an internationally-acclaimed New York City-based author, poet, playwright, and graphic designer. Her previous books include of Our Lady of the Hunger: Poems and Three Somebodies: Plays about Notorious Dissidents, along with multiple chapbooks. Her poems and short stories appear in Arriving at a Shoreline, Love Love Magazine, Ladyland, Signs of Life, Have a NYC and Have a NYC 2 (NYC noir), and many more anthologies. She lives in Greenwich Village, New York City