Temporal dynamics of dual-task interference in the brain in a simulated driving environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual-task interference occurs when the brain's limited cognitive capacity leads to performance impairments during overlapping tasks. We aimed to investigate the time profile of this phenomenon using EEG, multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA), and drift-diffusion modeling (DDM). Participants performed a tone discrimination task, followed by a lane-change task with short or long stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) in a simulated driving environment. Dual-task interference increased lane-change reaction time, attributable to changes in decision and post-decision times, as indicated by DDM. MVPA findings revealed decreased decoding accuracy for the lane-change task in short SOA compared to long SOA and single-task conditions, highlighting interference. Using MVPA temporal generalization, we investigated how interference affects neural pattern stability over time, revealing disruptions as early as ∼250 ms after the lane change stimulus onset in short SOA trials, suggesting partial parallel processing in early stages. To assess stability across task conditions, we also applied MVPA conditional generalization. This analysis showed a delayed above-chance decoding accuracy (starting at ∼450 ms) in short SOA trials compared to long SOA and single-task conditions, suggesting a bottleneck in later processing stages. MVPA searchlight analysis further revealed a reduction in task-specific information, progressing from occipital and parietal regions (resonsible for perceptual and central processing) to frontal regions (responsible for decision-to-action mapping) in short versus long SOA trials. Overall, our findings suggest that tasks are processed partially in parallel during the first hundred milliseconds, particularly in perceptual and decision stages. Beyond ∼450 ms, competition exists in routing of information to motor areas, causing serial processing and delays for the second task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".