نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترا، گروه بیوالکتریک، دانشکده‌ی مهندسی پزشکی، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه بیوالکتریک، دانشکده‌ی مهندسی پزشکی، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران

3 استاد، گروه بیوالکتریک، دانشکده‌ی مهندسی پزشکی، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران

10.22041/ijbme.2021.521212.1653

چکیده

توانایی انسان برای انجام چند وظیفه‌ی هم‌زمان در مطالعات بسیاری مورد بررسی قرار گرفته و انجام دو وظیفه‌ی توام همواره یکی از مهم­ترین مسایل شناختی و روان­شناختی بوده است. نحوه‌ی اجرا و تاثیر دو وظیفه‌ی توام روی یک‌دیگر به منظور شناخت کارکرد مغز و تاثیر آن روی خروجی رفتاری در بیماری­های مختلف مورد مطالعه قرار گرفته است. در این مقاله تاثیر سختی بر اجرای دو وظیفه­ی توام گسسته-پیوسته و حرکتی-شناختی مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. برای این منظور از یک وظیفه­ی گسسته­ی شنیداری به همراه وظیفه­ی پیوسته­ی حرکتی دنبال کردن به عنوان دو وظیفه­ی توام استفاده شده است. تعداد 25 نفر در این آزمایش شرکت کرده و از آن­ها خواسته شده است تا به صورت هم‌زمان به تحریک شنیداری پاسخ داده و عمل دنبال کردن حرکتی را نیز انجام دهند. تاثیر سختی روی میزان خطا و زمان پاسخ با استفاده از مدل رانش-انتشار بررسی شده است. در این مدل چهار پارامتری، پارامتر رانش برای بررسی میزان دشواری وظیفه در نظر گرفته شده است. نتایج پارامتر رانش (مقادیر میانگین 5/0، 3/0 و 2/0) در مدل می­تواند با تغییرات دشواری در سه سطح، در آزمایش هماهنگی خوبی داشته و به عنوان پارامتر دشواری مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Drift-Diffusion Model for One-Choice Motor-Cognitive Dual-Task

نویسندگان [English]

  • Maryam Sadeghi Talarposhti 1
  • Mohammad Ali Ahmadi-Pajouh 2
  • Frazad Towhidkhah 3

1 Ph.D. Student, Bioelectrics, Biomedical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Bioelectrics, Biomedical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor, Bioelectrics, Biomedical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Human being is capable of performing more than one task simultaneously. This ability has been investigated in many researches. Performing more than one task at the same time has always been a challenging topic in psychology and human perception fields. The output and the effect of two tasks have been studied in previous researches for understanding the brain’s performance and also the disease origin and the symptoms. The influence of different difficulty levels has been explored via discrete-continuous motor-cognitive dual-task (DT). To this aim, a manual tracking task combined with discrete auditory stimuli to establish DT procedure. Twenty-five participants in this paradigm were asked to track the target on screen while reacting to the auditory task at the same time. Two levels of difficulty in manual tracking plus a single auditory task (ST) were considered for the experiment. The variability of output via different difficulties was investigated by analyzing factors of error rate and the response time (RT). For this analysis, a Drift Diffusion Model (DDM) method was used. In this 4-parameter model, the drift parameter is assumed to show the difficulty levels. The results show that by applying different drift rates (the average of 0.5, 0.3, and 0.2), the model is consistent with experimental output RT and the drift factor has the potential to be considered as the difficulty factor in the DT procedure.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Dual-task
  • Motor-cognitive
  • Tracking
  • Auditory
  • Drift Diffusion Modeling
  1. Pashler H, Jolicœur P, Dell'Acqua R, Crebolder J, Goschke T, De Jong R, et al, “Task switching and multitask performance, in Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance,” The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, US. p. 275-423, 2000.
  2. Welford, A.T., “The psychological refractory period' and the timing of high-speed performance—a review and a theory,” British Journal of Psychology, 43: p. 2-19, 1952.
  3. Yogev G, Giladi N, Peretz C, Springer S, Simon ES, Hausdorff JM, “Dual tasking, gait rhythmicity, and Parkinson's disease: Which aspects of gait are attention demanding?,” European Journal of Neuroscience, 22(5): p. 1248-1256, 2005.
  4. Mofateh R, Salehi R, Negahban H, Mehravar M, Tajali S, “Effects of cognitive versus motor dual-task on spatiotemporal gait parameters in healthy controls and multiple sclerosis patients with and without fall history,” Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 18: p. 8-14, 2017.
  5. Muhle P, Claus I, Labeit B, Ogawa M, Dziewas R, Suntrup-Krueger S, et al, “Effects of cognitive and motor dual-tasks on oropharyngeal swallowing assessed with FEES in healthy individuals,” Scientific Reports, 10(1): p. 20403, 2020.
  6. Åhman HB, Cedervall Y, Kilander L, Giedraitis V, Berglund L, McKee KJ, et al, “Dual-task tests discriminate between dementia, mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive impairment, and healthy controls – a cross-sectional cohort study,” BMC Geriatrics, 20(1): p. 258, 2020
  7. Rogers, R.D. and S. Monsell, “Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2): p. 207-231, 1995.
  8. Kiesel A, Steinhauser M, Wendt M, Falkenstein M, Jost K, Philipp AM, et al, “Control and interference in task switching—A review,” Psychological Bulletin, 136(5): p. 849-874, 2010.
  9. Sigman, M. and S. Dehaene, “Dynamics of the central bottleneck: dual-task and task uncertainty,” PLoS biology, 4(7): p. e220, 2006.
  10. Meyer, D.E. and D.E. Kieras, “A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms,” Psychol Rev, 104(1): p. 3-65, 1997.
  11. Logan, G.D. and R.D. Gordon, “Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations,” Psychological Review, 108(2): p. 393-434, 2001
  12. Baddeley, A., “Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies,” 63(1): p. 1-29 2,012
  13. Buss AT, Wifall T, Hazeltine E, Spencer JP, “Integrating the behavioral and neural dynamics of response selection in a dual-task paradigm: A dynamic neural field model of dux et al. 2009,” Cognitive Neuroscience 26(2): p. 334–351, 2014
  14. D'Esposito M, Detre JA, Alsop DC, Shin RK, Atlas S, Grossman M, “The neural basis of the central executive system of working memory,” Nature, 378(6554): p. 279-281, 1995.
  15. Schubert, T. and A.J. Szameitat, “Functional neuroanatomy of interference in overlapping dual tasks: an fMRI study,” Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3): p. 733-746, 2003.
  16. Dux PE, Ivanoff J, Asplund CL, Marois R, “Isolation of a Central Bottleneck of Information Processing with Time-Resolved fMRI,” Neuron, 52(6): p. 1109-1120, 2006.
  17. Herath P, Klingberg T, Young J, Amunts K, Roland P, “Neural Correlates of Dual Task Interference Can be Dissociated from Those of Divided Attention: an fMRI Study,” Cerebral Cortex,. 11(9): p. 796-805, 2001.
  18. Szameitat AJ, Lepsien J, Cramon DYv, Sterr A, Schubert T, “Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: an event-related fMRI study,” Psychological Research, 70(6): p. 541-552, 2006.
  19. Szameitat AJ, Schubert T, MÜLler K, Von Cramon DY, “Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI,”, Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 14(8): p. 1184-1199, 2002
  20. O'Shea, S., M.E. Morris, and R. Iansek, “Dual Task Interference During Gait in People With Parkinson Disease: Effects of Motor Versus Cognitive Secondary Tasks,” Physical Therapy, 82(9): p. 888-897, 2002.
  21. Ewolds HE, Bröker L, de Oliveira RF, Raab M, Künzell S, “Implicit and Explicit Knowledge Both Improve Dual Task Performance in a Continuous Pursuit Tracking Task,” 8(2241), 2017.
  22. Tsang, S.N.H. and A.H.S. Chan, “Tracking and discrete dual task performance with different spatial stimulus–response mappings,” Ergonomics, 58(3): p. 368-382, 2015.
  23. McNeil MR, Matthews CT, Hula WD, Doyle PJ, Fossett TRD, “Effects of visual‐manual tracking under dual‐task conditions on auditory language comprehension and story retelling in persons with aphasia,” Aphasiology, 20(2-4): p. 167-174, 2006.
  24. Yogev-Seligmann, G., J.M. Hausdorff, and N. Giladi, “The Role of Executive Function and Attention in Gait. Movement disorders,” 23(3): p. 329-342, 2008.
  25. Tombu, M. and P. Jolicœur, “A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1): p. 3-18, 2003.
  26. Janczyk, M., P. Mittelstädt, and C. Wienrich’s, “Parallel dual-task processing and task-shielding in older and younger adults: Behavioral and diffusion model results,” J Experimental aging research, 44(2): p. 95-116, 2018.
  27. Ratcliff, R., “A theory of memory retrieval,” J Psychological review, 85(2): p. 59, 1978.
  28. Fudenberg D, Newey WK, Strack P, Strzalecki T, “Testing the Drift-Diffusion Model,” arXiv preprint, 2019.
  29. Milosavljevic M, Malmaud J, Huth A, Koch C, Rangel A, Making D, “The drift diffusion model can account for the accuracy and reaction time of value-based choices under high and low time pressure,” J Judgment, 5(6): p. 437, 2010.
  30. Murata T, Hamada T, Shimokawa T, Tanifuji M, Yanagida T, “Stochastic process underlying emergent recognition of visual objects hidden in degraded images,” J PLoS One, 9(12): p. e115658, 2014.
  31. Klapp, S.T., P.A. Kelly, and A. Netick, “Hesitations in continuous tracking induced by a concurrent discrete task,” Human factors, 29(3): p. 327-337, 1987.
  32. Netick, A. and S.T. Klapp, “Hesitations in manual tracking: A single-channel limit in response programming,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4): p. 766-782. 1994.
  33. Klapp, S.T., D. Maslovat, and R.J. Jagacinski, “The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection,” Psychon Bull Rev, 26(1): p. 29-47, 2019
  34. Ratcliff, R. and P.L. Smith, “A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time,” J Psychological review, 111(2): p. 333, 2004.
  35. Voss, A., J. Voss, and V. Lerche, “Assessing cognitive processes with diffusion model analyses: a tutorial based on fast-dm-30,” 6(336), 2015.
  36. Ulrich R, Schröter H, Leuthold H, Birngruber T, “Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions,” Cognitive psychology, 78: p. 148-174, 2015.
  37. Höcker A, Speckmayer P, Stelzer J, Tegenfeldt F, Voss H, Voss K, et al, “TMVA - Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis,” 2007.
  38. Voss A, Voss J, Klauer KC, “Separating response‐execution bias from decision bias: Arguments for an additional parameter in Ratcliff's diffusion model,” British journal of mathematical, 63(3): p. 539-555, 2010.
  39. Sadeghi Talarposhti, M., M.A. Ahmadi-Pajouh, and F. Towhidkhah, “Modeling one-choice discrete-continuous dual task,” in 27th National and 3rd International Iranian Conference on Biomedical Engineering (ICBME), Tehran, Iran, 2020.
  40. Voss A, Rothermund K, Voss J, “Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation,” J Memory, 32(7): p. 1206-1220, 2004.
  41. Ratcliff, R. and P.L. Smith, “Perceptual discrimination in static and dynamic noise: The temporal relation between perceptual encoding and decision making,” J Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(1): p. 70, 2010.