In the present study, participants performed highly comparable task-switching and dual-task paradigms, and the paradigm-specific performance costs were analysed in the context of the commonly postulated core components of cognitive control (i.e., working memory updating, inhibition, and shifting). In the task-switching paradigm, we found switch costs (i.e., switch trials vs. repetition trials) and mixing costs (i.e., repetition trials in mixed-task blocks vs. single-task trials). In the dual-task paradigm, we observed a psychological refractory period (PRP) effect (i.e., Task 2 [T2] performance after short stimulus-onset asynchrony [SOA] vs. long SOA), dual-task costs (i.e., T2 dual-task performance with a long SOA in trials with a task repetition between Task 1 [T1] and T2 vs. single-task performance), and switch costs in T2 (i.e., dual-task performance in trials with a switch between T1 and T2 vs. dual-task performance in trials with a repetition between T1 and T2). A within-subjects comparison of the performance costs showed a correlation between mixing costs and dual-task costs, possibly indicating shared underlying cognitive control processes in terms of working memory updating. Surprisingly, there was also a correlation between switch costs and the PRP effect, presumably suggesting that cognitive control, as opposed to passive queuing of response selection processes, contributes to the PRP effect.

中文翻译：

---

在任务切换和双任务上下文中作为基础性能的通用认知控制过程

在本研究中，参与者执行了高度可比的任务转换和双任务范式，并在认知控制的常见假设核心组件（即工作记忆更新、抑制和转移）的背景下分析了特定于范式的绩效成本。 ）。在任务切换范式中，我们发现了切换成本（即切换试验与重复试验）和混合成本（即混合任务块中的重复试验与单任务试验）。在双任务范式中，我们观察到心理不应期 (PRP) 效应（即短期刺激开始异步 [SOA] 后的任务 2 [T2] 表现 vs. 长 SOA）、双任务成本（即 T2 双- 在任务 1 [T1] 和 T2 之间的任务重复与单任务性能的试验中具有较长 SOA 的任务性能，以及 T2 中的转换成本（即，在 T1 和 T2 之间切换的试验中的双任务性能与在 T1 和 T2 之间重复的试验中的双任务性能）。性能成本的受试者内比较显示混合成本和双任务成本之间存在相关性，可能表明在工作记忆更新方面共享潜在的认知控制过程。令人惊讶的是，转换成本和 PRP 效应之间也存在相关性，这可能表明认知控制，而不是响应选择过程的被动排队，有助于 PRP 效应。可能表明在工作记忆更新方面共享的潜在认知控制过程。令人惊讶的是，转换成本和 PRP 效应之间也存在相关性，这可能表明认知控制，而不是响应选择过程的被动排队，有助于 PRP 效应。可能表明在工作记忆更新方面共享的潜在认知控制过程。令人惊讶的是，转换成本和 PRP 效应之间也存在相关性，这可能表明认知控制，而不是响应选择过程的被动排队，有助于 PRP 效应。