EXPRESS: The affective consequences of response inhibition determine no-go based crosstalk effects in dual tasks.

Backward crosstalk effects (BCE) are observed in dual-task studies when characteristics of Task 2 influence Task 1 performance. When Task 2 is a go/no-go task, responses in Task 1 are slower when Task 2 is a no-go as compared to a go trial. This no-go BCE has been argued to be due to response inhibition spilling over from Task 2 to Task 1. Growing evidence shows that response inhibition elicits negative affect leading to affective devaluation of associated stimuli. We tested for a functional role of the negative affective consequence of response inhibition in the no-go BCE by investigating its interaction with affective processing in Task 1. In four experiments, Task 1 was a valence categorization task, and Task 2 a go/no-go task. In all experiments, the no-go BCE strongly depended on affective processing in Task 1. While this modulation could be attributed to an affective (mis)match between stimulus features in both tasks in Experiments 1 and 2, Experiments 3 and 4 provided evidence for an affective (mis)match between stimulus valence in Task 1 and affective consequences of Task 2 response inhibition. Results are discussed in the context of current theories of no-go BCE in dual tasks.

Modulation of the executive control network by anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves task shielding in dual tasking.

Task shielding is an important executive control demand in dual-task performance enabling the segregation of stimulus-response translation processes in each task to minimize between-task interference. Although neuroimaging studies have shown activity in left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) during various multitasking performances, the specific role of dlPFC in task shielding, and whether non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) may facilitate task shielding remains unclear. We therefore applied a single-blind, crossover sham-controlled design in which 34 participants performed a dual-task experiment with either anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS, 1 mA, 20 min) or sham tDCS (1 mA, 30 s) over left dlPFC. Task shielding was assessed by the backward-crosstalk effect, indicating the extent of between-task interference in dual tasks. Between-task interference was largest at high temporal overlap between tasks, i.e., at short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). Most importantly, in these conditions of highest multitasking demands, atDCS compared to sham stimulation significantly reduced between-task interference in error rates. These findings extend previous neuroimaging evidence and support modulation of successful task shielding through a conventional tDCS setup with anodal electrode over the left dlPFC. Moreover, our results demonstrate that NIBS can improve shielding of the prioritized task processing, especially in conditions of highest vulnerability to between-task interference.

Two types of between-task conflict trigger respective processing adjustments within one dual-task.

In dual tasking, two different kinds of between-task conflict occur. Because in both cases, Task 2 characteristics affect Task 1 performance, they are commonly referred to as backward crosstalk effects (BCE): One with a conflict at the response selection stage when Task 1 and Task 2 have dimensional overlap (the compatibility-based BCE) and one with a conflict at the motor execution stage when response inhibition resulting from a Task 2 no-go-trial interferes with simultaneous response execution in Task 1 (the no-go BCE). Recent research suggests that these BCEs differ not only in their underlying cognitive processes, but also in how cognitive control is regulated. Here, we investigated whether both can be produced in a single dual-task set up and whether they trigger their respective processing adjustments (i.e., a sequential modulation). In three experiments, participants categorized numbers as smaller or larger than 5 in Task 1. In Experiments 1 and 2, numbers were responded to irrespective of numerical size (go-response) as Task 2. Further, dimensional overlap was provided by (non)corresponding size information in both stimuli, which was strengthened in Experiment 2 by presenting S1 and S2 in the same/different color in compatible/incompatible trials, respectively. In Experiment 3, participants were required to perform a number-size categorization also in Task 2, establishing strong dimensional overlap by activating the same or different response categories in both tasks. In all three experiments, the number 5 served as the no-go stimulus in Task 2 to induce a no-go BCE on Task 1. By and large, our results show that both types of between-task conflicts not only occur within the same type of BCE, but they also trigger their respective sequential modulation.