Can You Truly Multitask?

[AmazingLight]

Can you really do two things at once or is it an illusion?

There have been many contradictory opinions on this question, even from sources that are usually labelled as "trustworthy" and "reliable". A Google search does not give the sort of answers I am looking for. Does anybody have their own opinions if multitasking is actually possible? I am not looking for a "yes" or "no" answer but rather a justification on the the science behind this. Referring to the brain would be a good start.

 

[symbolipoint]

Think about the question this way:

Why do we now have laws against using a cell phone while driving? I hope this helps you with your question.

 

[Simon Bridge]

There have been many contradictory opinions on this question, even from sources that are usually labelled as "trustworthy" and "reliable".

Which sources are these and can you give examples with citations of this difference of opinion?

A Google search does not give the sort of answers I am looking for.

What sort of answers are you looking for?
We need to know before we waste time giving you the wrong sort of answers.
There is also the problem that correct or truthful answers may not be to your liking.

Does anybody have their own opinions if multitasking is actually possible? I am not looking for a "yes" or "no" answer but rather a justification on the the science behind this. Referring to the brain would be a good start.

First define your terms - people have different ideas about what "multitasking" actually means.
It's pretty clear the the brain has a lot going on at the same time, but that's probably not what you mean.
Computers multitask either by actually being several computers or assigning runtime to different tasks consecutively so fast that they appear to be run at the same time. Does that count?

Probably the most important scientific skill is asking questions.
If you are not careful to define your terms, it is hardly surprising that you get different results.
I suspect the same will happen here - everyone will answer according to their own interpretation of the terms of your question and you will get about as many nuances as people responding ... doing you little good unless you are a social scientist studying the group itself and not multi-tasking.

 

[utkarshraj]

Of course,

Multitasking is very important part of our life. Actually you do it but don't realize when you do it.

Best example "symbolipoint" gave but there are more examples like listening to music while studying which is not so effective ;-)

PM me for more questions!

 

[4568131947]

Depends upon the level at which you ask the question. The body can walk and talk and look and hear. At what level do you do those things. What systems are operating and to what level do they perform. In terms of processing, a processor can only process one instruction set unless it is passed on to something else. Then you have multiple workers. A single worker can splice their work but is that actually multitasking in it's true form.

 

[Simon Bridge]

... Then you have multiple workers. A single worker can splice their work but is that actually multitasking in it's true form.

... and then, perhaps that's what "multitasking" means and "true multitasking" becomes like a "no true scotsman" argument.

 

[Solcielo L]

According to brain scans in an MRI, to answer the question of how the brain multitasks, the results indicate that multitasking is simply switching from one task to another. At no point does the brain split it's processes to deal with two tasks simultaneously. Conclusion: multitasking is a myth. This is from the field of neuroscience.

However, the field of psychology accepts the notion of multitasking. Studies have shown that multitaskers do two tasks poorly compared to the those who do the tasks sequentially. Other studies indicate that you can even improve your multitasking skills through training.

By combining the research from these two different fields this is the conclusion that you should end up with: 1. multitask training is really training a person's ability to switch back and forth from one task to the other, not actually improving the ability to multitask; 2. the poor results of multitasking is because the brain is not allotting its full attention to the task at hand, hence the poor results.

So to answer the question of "Is multitasking possible?" The answer appears to be: No.

 

[Simon Bridge]

At no point does the brain split it's processes to deal with two tasks simultaneously. Conclusion: multitasking is a myth.

OR... that switching between tasks is multitasking?

The question is unclear.
See post #3 - we need to hear from OP to find out what is intended.

 

[Curious3141]

OR... that switching between tasks is multitasking?

The question is unclear.
See post #3 - we need to hear from OP to find out what is intended.

Since the word "multitasking" came from Computer Science, it's best we stick to the original definitions:

Multitasking is when multiple programs are run in a single CPU, seemingly simultaneously. Most of the time, this is achieved by interleaving - i.e. the CPU switches very fast between the programs, so quickly they appear to be running uninterrupted at the same time. But it's still an illusion in that there's no true simultaneity.

Multiprocessing is when multiple programs are run in a multi-core CPU setup, such that each program gets its own dedicated CPU core. There is true simultaneity here.

Parallel processing is like the above, except that each program gets distributed to a different processor entirely.

So, if the human brain is switching rapidly between processes, it IS multitasking by the Comp Sci definition. It cannot, however, be said to be multiprocessing.

A brief search also netted me this interesting reference, which is on point: http://keet.wordpress.com/2006/07/2...ating-systems-versus-processing-in-the-brain/

So it seems the brain IS capable of a little multiprocessing.

 

[OmCheeto]

There have been many contradictory opinions on this question, even from sources that are usually labelled as "trustworthy" and "reliable". A Google search does not give the sort of answers I am looking for. Does anybody have their own opinions if multitasking is actually possible? I am not looking for a "yes" or "no" answer but rather a justification on the the science behind this. Referring to the brain would be a good start.

Many years ago, I was puzzled by the introduction of; "How are you at multi-tasking"? question into job interviews. Having programed computers for at least 30 years, I was familiar with the concept, but not how people could do two things at once. Unless of course it's one of those lizard brain functions like breathing, walking, and beating your heart.

I thought it was one of those stupid, trendy, "Management's new catch phrase of the year" type things. And, it looks as though I might have been correct:

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/06/this-year-resolve-to-do-less-multitasking/
January 6, 2012: 11:11 AM ET
...
So I made a New Year's resolution to cut it out, or at least do less multitasking. The problem is my boss, who is constantly piling more stuff on me to do "with my left hand," as he puts it, when I'm already busier than a woodpecker in a lumberyard. Can you or your readers suggest any way to convince him that we'd all be better off tackling one thing at a time? — Frazzled

Dear Frazzled: A heap of academic research has demonstrated conclusively that the human brain needs time to refocus every time we turn our attention in a different direction. A famous experiment at Stanford in 2009, for instance, found that multitaskers are "more susceptible to interference from irrelevant environmental stimuli" -- that is, more easily distracted and less efficient at what they're trying to do.

So your impression that doing several things at once slows you down and trips up your productivity is correct. But if your boss isn't impressed with academic research, Sanjeev Gupta, CEO of consulting firm Realization, suggests a quick game to prove the point.

...

bolding mine

Although, at work, I'm able to listen to someone on the phone, and write down what they are saying. hmmmm... I'm going to answer your question with a cautious "yes", as I have not a clue how my mind works.

I'll have to do experiments when I get back to work next week. I listen to the phone with my left ear, and write down what is being said with my right hand. I know my right hand is controlled by my left hemisphere, but I don't know where the signal from my left ear goes, nor where it is processed, nor what part of my brain tells my left hemisphere to tell my hand to wiggle in a meaningful manner.

Perhaps this question should be moved to the Medical Sciences section.

 

[Evo]

Yes, multi-tasking is possible. When I first started at AT&T, one of the pre-employment tests was multi-tasking. In the business office I had to answer my phone (holding the receiver between my ear and my shoulder, no headsets - ouch), while writing the conversation with my right hand, while I used my left hand to get their microfilm records out and use the microfilm viewer. All 3 of these tasks had to be carried out at the same time because all information had to be found and given to the customer, arrangements made or orders taken and conversation transcribed by the time the call ended and then the phone would immediately ring and you'd have a new customer and it would start all over again. It took a special type of person that could split their attention between three tasks simultaneously, and yes the office was all women. After a while it became so easy you really didn't think about it.

This was back in the 70's. And yes, it was called...MULTITASKING. The wiki article claiming that the term comes from computer multi tasking was written by a nimnal.

Human multitasking is the apparent performance by an individual of handling more than one task at the same time. The term is derived from computer multitasking. An example of multitasking is taking phone calls while typing an email.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking

Buwahahaha. Hey kid, there was human multitasking in a business setting for decades before computers became a buiness tool. Good grief, the nonsense on wiki by people that don't know what they're talking about. Oh as as to the wiki saying the term multitask was first used in print by IBM in 1966, no. Look at this book printed in 1954. The term was in use at least in the 50's, if not earlier, but much of what was printed in old pamphlets, intra-company training and office memos, etc... never got uploaded to the internet. It would seem it is a term that was borrowed to describe computer functions.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf...ook_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBw

 

[symbolipoint]

Yes, multi-tasking is possible. When I first started at AT&T, one of the pre-employment tests was multi-tasking. In the business office I had to answer my phone (holding the receiver between my ear and my shoulder, no headsets - ouch), while writing the conversation with my right hand, while I used my left hand to get their microfilm records out and use the microfilm viewer. All 3 of these tasks had to be carried out at the same time because all information had to be found and given to the customer, arrangements made or orders taken and conversation transcribed by the time the call ended and then the phone would immediately ring and you'd have a new customer and it would start all over again. It took a special type of person that could split their attention between three tasks simultaneously, and yes the office was all women. After a while it became so easy you really didn't think about it.

This was back in the 70's. And yes, it was called...MULTITASKING. The wiki article claiming that the term comes from computer multi tasking was written by a nimnal.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking

Buwahahaha. Hey kid, there was human multitasking in a business setting for decades before computers became a buiness tool. Good grief, the nonsense on wiki by people that don't know what they're talking about.

Evo,

What you discuss about the pre-employment test is very enlightening; but I still characterize humans doing conscious multi-tasking as like driving a car while using a cell phone.

 

[Solcielo L]

When I first started at AT&T, one of the pre-employment tests was multi-tasking. In the business office I had to answer my phone (holding the receiver between my ear and my shoulder, no headsets - ouch), while writing the conversation with my right hand, while I used my left hand to get their microfilm records out and use the microfilm viewer.

That sounds like note-taking in a college course. I wouldn't consider that multitasking since it's essentially the same task, just different parts of the task. It's like reading and saying aloud what you're reading while turning the pages.

When I think of multitasking, I think different tasks like a) talking on a phone while b) driving and c) eating a sandwich. If that sounds like you don't have any hands free to steer, you are supposed to steer with your knee. ;)

 

[Evo]

That sounds like note-taking in a college course. I wouldn't consider that multitasking since it's essentially the same task, just different parts of the task. It's like reading and saying aloud what you're reading while turning the pages.

When I think of multitasking, I think different tasks like a) talking on a phone while b) driving and c) eating a sandwich. If that sounds like you don't have any hands free to steer, you are supposed to steer with your knee. ;)

In my instance, you are writing (not only what you hear but original solutions you have come up with, you are not taking notes), you are holding a discussion while making decisions on the phone, you are using a machine to look for data. Those are all different tasks requiring different skills sets. The holding a discussion while making decisions would be an example of two parts of the same task. The others are not,

Multitasking

Definition
› a person's ability to do more than one thing at a time:
Women are often very good at multitasking.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/multitasking_1

 

[Curious3141]

This was back in the 70's. And yes, it was called...MULTITASKING. The wiki article claiming that the term comes from computer multi tasking was written by a nimnal.

I didn't write the wiki, and actually hadn't even read it when I made the assertion that the term came from Comp Sci. And the jury's still out on whether I'm a "nimnal". But everything that I've read bears out that the term came from Comp Sci, or at least a physical-science related discipline like Engineering. Only then did the term pass into common parlance to describe "human multitasking".

You stated that your term derives from the 70s. Here's an exchange (on stackexchange, duh), where it is stated that the term was used in Comp Sci as far back as 1966. http://english.stackexchange.com/qu...erm-multitasking-come-from-the-computer-realm

The quote:

As a matter of fact, the word multitasking did originate in the computer realm, but it is older than you estimate.

According to the OED, the first citation of the word is from 1966, in a magazine called Datamation:

Multi-tasking is defined as the use of a single CPU for the simultaneous processing of two or more jobs.

The more general sense of multitasking, then, arose from this computing term.

I'm afraid I don't have any stronger source than that to back up my claim. But since you assert that the term didn't originate from Comp Sci, it behoves you to back up that assertion with definitive references. PF rules, after all.

EDIT: The same page even links to a possible apropos use of the term in Comp Sci from 1948! http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...UDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y

Stackexchange is awesome.

 

[Evo]

I didn't write the wiki, and actually hadn't even read it when I made the assertion that the term came from Comp Sci. And the jury's still out on whether I'm a "nimnal".

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the wiki nimnal.

You stated that your term derives from the 70s.

I said it was in common use when I started work in the 70's.

Here's an exchange (on stackexchange, duh), where it is stated that the term was used in Comp Sci as far back as 1966. http://english.stackexchange.com/qu...erm-multitasking-come-from-the-computer-realm

I'm afraid I don't have any stronger source than that to back up my claim. But since you assert that the term didn't originate from Comp Sci, it behoves you to back up that assertion with definitive references. PF rules, after all.

Did you read my post? I also found the reference to the term used in print in 1954 that had nothing to do with computers.

Using Google Books, I found several instances of multi-task in print prior to 1966. Here's the earliest I found, in a description of a lawn mower from a 1954 issue of Chambers's Journal:

Last month a multi-task appliance for turf maintenance was described here, but it was pointed out that its size and cost made it more suitable for use on large areas of grass—e.g. sports grounds, parkland, etc.

I believe this shows that the term multi-tasking did not orginate specifically as computer jargon, but was present prior as engineering jargon.

This earlier use probably did not carry the meaning of performing multiple tasks at the same time, but rather meant, simply, able to perform multiple tasks.

http://english.stackexchange.com/qu...erm-multitasking-come-from-the-computer-realm

Did you read the bottom of this post of mine? https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4446933&postcount=11

It was a late edit, so maybe you hadn't noticed. Funny we both used the same source.

 

[Curious3141]

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the wiki nimnal.

That's reassuring!

Did you read the bottom of this post of mine? https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4446933&postcount=11

It was a late edit, so maybe you hadn't noticed. Funny we both used the same source.

You should see my late-r edit. 1948 trumps the 50s.

BTW, even if multitasking was used in another (non-Comp Sci) sense, its early use was more closely related to the physical-sciences than the social sciences (as I stated clearly in my earlier post). The use in describing an "appliance" as capable of "multitasking" is definitely more closely aligned to engineering than sociology. Engineering is closer to Comp Sci. So there!

 

[Evo]

You should see my late-r edit. 1948 trumps the 50s.

They decided that reference was wrong if you read down.

BTW, even if multitasking was used in another (non-Comp Sci) sense, its early use was more closely related to the physical-sciences than the social sciences (as I stated clearly in my earlier post). The use in describing an "appliance" as capable of "multitasking" is definitely more closely aligned to engineering than sociology. Engineering is closer to Comp Sci. So there!

Well, I did work for AT&T. We were ahead of everyone else. Part of my appraisal was my ability to multitask. And I wuz guud. :thumbs: OOH new smiley!

 

[Curious3141]

They decided that reference was wrong if you read down.

Goes to show I should read more thoroughly and carefully. Nimnal retracts the claim.

Well, I did work for AT&T. We were ahead of everyone else. Part of my appraisal was my ability to multitask. And I wuz guud. :thumbs: OOH new smiley!

I don't doubt you were good at multitasking - anyone with kids has to be, lots of things to juggle around one's head.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Since the word "multitasking" came from Computer Science, it's best we stick to the original definitions:

Multitasking is when multiple programs are run in a single CPU, seemingly simultaneously. Most of the time, this is achieved by interleaving - i.e. the CPU switches very fast between the programs, so quickly they appear to be running uninterrupted at the same time.

That would be the definition I had in mind :D Thanks.

But it's still an illusion in that there's no true simultaneity.

Fortunately for my post the use in computer science only requires the appearance of running at the same time.

So, if the human brain is switching rapidly between processes, it IS multitasking by the Comp Sci definition. It cannot, however, be said to be multiprocessing.

The question refers to mutitasking, not multiprocessing.

What you see depends on what scale you are looking at. I think all posters agree that multitasking occurs at the whole human and whole-brain level.

The question asks for the effect at the cellular scale as well right?

 

[Evo]

We could just go by the definition of multitasking for humans. Why not start at the simplest first?

Multitasking

Definition
› a person's ability to do more than one thing at a time:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/multitasking_1

No need to compare a person multitasking to a computer. It's just something people do, some obviously better than others. And the OP seems to have lost interest since they have not responded at all to Simon's initial question as to what, exactly, they were asking.

http://www.livescience.com/19983-multitaking-work-bad-feel-good.html

 

[Simon Bridge]

We have an ask-and-run, yep.
Or someone who enjoys asking question to watch the eggheads fight :)

 

[D H]

I've been meaning to reply to this thread since last Friday, when NPR's Science Friday had a segment on http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/05/10/2013/the-myth-of-multitasking.html.

I guess too many other tasks just got in the way. They didn't get in the way of Steven Colbert:

 

[lurflurf]

This is mostly about useless distinctions. Performing several tasks is multitasking whether in series or parallel. It is still multitasking if the tasks are related or interdependent. Multitasking is obviously useful as it is not always possible to split tasks up. The decision to multitask or not is a cost benefit analysis, which is often easy given common metrics. That is when you are preforming task A and task B becomes briefly urgent it would be hard to argue against switching briefly to B. Our total work output might be reduced, but since working on B was so valuable the cost of switching was justified.

 

[Simon Bridge]

This is mostly about useless distinctions. Performing several tasks is multitasking whether in series or parallel.

It is still possible to usefully consider at what level this "multitasking" can be usefully said to occur.
Post #1 asks about this.

However, all the previous discussion is pretty useless until we get some clarification from OP.
The question, as written, is far too open to interpretation.

 

[someGorilla]

Without stepping into the discussion (which I find interesting but a bit empty if we don't have a shared definition of what we mean by "multitasking")... can anybody steer me to the reports/articles/whatever of the neurological experiments that supposedly have been done about this? I've heard people claim that it "has been demonstrated" that the brain actually switches between different tasks and derive pretty nonsensical arguments from this. I'd like to see the source of these claims, if such source exists. What mostly makes me doubt about it is the fact that when we talk of multitasking we generally mean conscious multitasking, i.e. splitting or smearing one's attention between different tasks. Now, since we don't have a neurological description of consciousness or attention I'm a bit skeptical that "switching" consciousness has been detected. Thanks for your help.

 

[Simon Bridge]

... can anybody steer me to the reports/articles/whatever of the neurological experiments that supposedly have been done about this? I've heard people claim that it "has been demonstrated" that the brain actually switches between different tasks and derive pretty nonsensical arguments from this. I'd like to see the source of these claims, if such source exists.

I'd like to see that too.
A quick troll through google scholar yields a range of papers on the subject - but it is hard to work out which ones the arguments are referring to.

http://faculty.winthrop.edu/hinera/CRTW-Spring_2011/TheMythofMultitasking_Rosen.pdf
... an overview, with searchable references (but no direct citations :( ). It will give you an idea how multitasking can be investigated without a neurological description of consciousness or attention.

I have noticed that the papers and articles making out "multitasking is a myth" all say that, in fact, that multitasking is inefficient. i.e. the word "multitasking" is being used to label an ethos rather than an activity.

 

[Evo]

I think this is why AT&T did extensive pre-hiring multitasking tests. I heard that only 2% passed. Of course AT&T has so many applications from people wanting jobs, they can afford to require the top 2%. These were non-management customer facing positions. But when I was first hired, I made the 2% cut. I read recently (after this thread started) that scientists think that only 10% of the population has the ability to successfully multitask. It's a very special skill. It might be in one of my links.

I guess that means that for 90% of the population it's an unattainable "myth". It's not a myth, it's just a very rare skill. Everyone in my office had this skill, and I've never worked with such exceptional people. Of course some were light years ahead of others, and the worst got replaced. When I got promoted, they had to hire 3 people and divide my work between them. Two others there were my mentors and so awesome. These two women were phenomenal. April had an IQ of 158, which is why, even though I was told my IQ was 185, I tell people 158, because no one, in my opinion, was better than April. I thought the fact that the last two numbers were transposed meant something. Paula was the other one. We all easily did the work of three people, and three multitaskers at that.

That doesn't mean we had the knowledge or expertise on the level of people here. No way.

We were worker bees. And we exist.

 

[Simon Bridge]

I read recently...

Um. Where? ;)

(after this thread started) that scientists think that only 10% of the population has the ability to successfully multitask.

 

[Evo]

Um. Where? ;)

here.

"There's a small number of people who are decent multitaskers — this concept of a 'supertasker' — but at best, it's maybe 10 percent of the population, so chances are, you're not one of them," Markman told LiveScience. "The research out there will tell you that there are a couple of people who are good at it, but it's probably not you."

http://www.livescience.com/37420-multitasking-brain-psychology.html

Apparently from the AT&T tests, I am one of those very rare people. Kewl.

Oh, and when I was younger I had a very strange near photographic memory. I simply had to open the photo album in my mind and flip to the memory I wanted. But I have also posted about this here before, like the rest. I was 24 years old before I found out that my mind/memory did not work like other people. I thought everyone had photo albums in their mind for the memories where they could think of a memory near the one they wanted and just flip through the pages to find the specific memory they wanted. I have spoken to people whose memories work like mine, so it's not unique. I also have video clips of memories. I can see and hear the entire thing. But I think that's common.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Sounds like your memory works by an intuitive form of the method of loci - you just don't need to do it consciously. And thanks - more citations is what this thread despirately needs.

 

[Evo]

Sounds like your memory works by an intuitive form of the method of loci - you just don't need to do it consciously. And thanks - more citations is what this thread despirately needs.

We also need to agree on what multitasking is. I gave a definition, and really most average humans are capable of doing at least two things at once quite well. I can only do three things well at once because I only have one head and two hands. I'm not talking about carrying out multiple difficult math equations in my head all at once. I'm talking about low level mental and physical tasks simultaneously. I think that's something that most people on this forum could do well. But we're a bit above average.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Well - that's where the citations come in handy.
When someone offers support for a position statement, we can go to the support to see in what context the position statement is supported. This works like a lit review and provides a richer portrait of the phenomena being discussed... as opposed to settling on a strict definition then seeing if it happens.

In this thread we've already seen three contexts where someone may feel they can support a statement like "multitasking is/isn't a myth" :)

 

[Evo]

Well - that's where the citations come in handy.
When someone offers support for a position statement, we can go to the support to see in what context the position statement is supported. This works like a lit review and provides a richer portrait of the phenomena being discussed... as opposed to settling on a strict definition then seeing if it happens.

In this thread we've already seen three contexts where someone may feel they can support a statement like "multitasking is/isn't a myth" :)

I'd be interested to hear the explanation of what they are basing "multitasking is a myth" on. Obviously multitasking is possible. Are they basing it on simultaneous high level mental tasks that utilize the same area of the brain? I read a study on that also, of course that's unrealistic. That's something completely different, and not the norm, IMO. That's comparing realistic to unrealistic tasks.

I just refuse to believe that my fellow humans are so incompetent that they can't do two or three simple tasks well at the same time. We're not talking rocket surgery here.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Well I provided a link ... ;) (post #27)
It becomes apparent that the ward "multitasking" is used as a shorthand for an ethos ... an expectation that getting people to perform lots of tasks at the same time is more efficient in general than having them focus on one task at a time. You can see the tests they did - basic sorting, low-level cognitive stuff.

Where the only material present was relevant to the tasks to be performed, the "strong multitaskers" outperformed the one-thing-at-a-time people... but, introduce superfluous material and the multitaskers performance went down a lot, even for tasks that did not involve multitasking. You can see how this can be right?

However - that is not the same as saying that humans cannot do two things at once: just that they are generally not as good at it as doing one thing at a time, especially when the task requires focus. It's not disputing that multitasking happens - but compares performance limits with management expectations in a particular regime.

 

[Evo]

Well I provided a link ... ;) (post #27)
It becomes apparent that the ward "multitasking" is used as a shorthand for an ethos ... an expectation that getting people to perform lots of tasks at the same time is more efficient in general than having them focus on one task at a time. You can see the tests they did - basic sorting, low-level cognitive stuff.

Where the only material present was relevant to the tasks to be performed, the "strong multitaskers" outperformed the one-thing-at-a-time people... but, introduce superfluous material and the multitaskers performance went down a lot, even for tasks that did not involve multitasking. You can see how this can be right?

However - that is not the same as saying that humans cannot do two things at once: just that they are generally not as good at it as doing one thing at a time, especially when the task requires focus. It's not disputing that multitasking happens - but compares performance limits with management expectations in a particular regime.

I agree with your points, but I think on a basic level, a person that is not easily distracted can do three tasks as well or better than someone that can't focus on a single task. For a test to be meaningful, first they would have to be tested for their ability to not be distracted. Then groups of people with the same capabilities would be tested. Obviously someone suffering from ADHD would not be a candidate for a multitasking test. People that aren't proficient or confident in their skills would not be candidates. People that are easily distracted or stressed by larger than normal workloads would not be candidates.

One of the tests we had was a sheet of math problems, while we were working on them a recorded voice would come on telling us "if you answered X to question 10, erase it and put the answer on number 16. A minute later - if your answer to question 10 was not X, place it on question 2. Then a few minutes later the voice would come on and tell you to erase and move something else, often dealing with multiple moves. Then later it would ask you to go back and correct your incorrect answer to question 10 and move it to 16, and re-answer question 2. The exercise was timed. The more mistakes you made, the lower your score was, and you also had to complete the test, some people couldn't take it and quit. It was very annoying.

 

[Simon Bridge]

All that is in the methodology part of the paper :)

 

[fluidistic]

I don't think I have the ability to concentrate on 2 tasks at once.
For example I can't read a simple sentence if someone is talking to me and I want to understand him/her. I could read the sentence like a "zombie" but as soon as I finish it, I don't know what I've just read. The opposite is true, I could read well the sentence but have no clue what the person just said.
As written earlier in this thread by someone else, to perform multitasking would require my brain to switch from 1 task to another in a "quick" fashion.

 

[Simon Bridge]

I've done and seen done something like that managing a fast-food restaurant:
There's a frontline with up to three tills, drive-through (with the order point and two windows), 3 monitors, and three channels on the comms ... so I'd frequently have to be doing something with my hands while tracking/filtering two streams of conversation and keeping an eye on the production line.

The real-time demands on my attention meant it was one of the more challenging management jobs I've had.

Crew needed to be able to track two channels of comms, and carry out instructions from a customer and their immediate workmates, even when those instructions change part through, and track stock in their part.

Oh I see a "https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=620838 " in "Fun,Photos, and Games".

 

[fluidistic]

Oh I see a "https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=620838 " in "Fun,Photos, and Games".

I don't think the game represent multitasking in the meaning of doing several things at once. For the reason that one has only 2 eyes, when you reach level 3 and up your brain must switch quickly between 1 task to another. So yes, you're performing 3 task that appear to be "at once" but the brain really is concentrating on only 1 (or 2?) task(s) at once and it switches to the other iddle task as soon as one can.
Unless there are some people who can focus their eyes in the middle of the screen and perform really n tasks at once. If you tell me there exist such people, then I would trust you and say "wow, they are lucky" :)

 

[Evo]

Recent study.

Motivated Multitasking: How the Brain Keeps Tabs on Two Tasks at Once

New research shows that rather than being totally devoted to one goal at a time, the human brain can distribute two goals to different hemispheres to keep them both in mind--if it perceives a worthy reward for doing so.

A new study, however, illustrates how the brain can simultaneously keep track of two separate goals, even while it is busy performing a task related to one of the aims, hinting that the mind might be better at multitasking than previously thought.

For the study, 32 right-handed subjects were asked to match letters while their brain activity was recorded with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Koechlin and his coauthor Sylvain Charron (of the same institution) found that the subjects' brains divided the two reward-based goals between the two sides of the region. The results were published online April 15 in Science.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multitasking-two-tasks

More on the study.

Neuroscientist Scott Huettel of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, isn’t convinced of the two-task limit on human multitasking ability. “This shows there are conditions in which you can’t add a third task, but it depends on the type of task and whether it draws on other parts of the brain,” he says.

For example, people are remarkably good at eating while doing other things, he says, because the practiced motor skills involved in eating don’t overlap too heavily with those that interpret visual cues, control language, or run other complex processes. Nevertheless, he finds the dual-task division of labor “novel and exciting.” The study illustrates our striking lack of knowledge about how the brain’s hemispheres organize themselves, he says. “I wouldn’t have bet multitasking worked this way.

http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/04/multitasking-splits-brain

This is also what I believe, that more than two tasks are possible if one or more are on a lower physical level.

 

[Simon Bridge]

I don't think the game represent multitasking in the meaning of doing several things at once. For the reason that one has only 2 eyes, when you reach level 3 and up your brain must switch quickly between 1 task to another. So yes, you're performing 3 task that appear to be "at once" but the brain really is concentrating on only 1 (or 2?) task(s) at once and it switches to the other iddle task as soon as one can.
Unless there are some people who can focus their eyes in the middle of the screen and perform really n tasks at once. If you tell me there exist such people, then I would trust you and say "wow, they are lucky" :)

OR - you could say that the designer of the game is making a definition of multitasking to be the ability to quickly shift between tasks.

Hence the call for a definition earlier.
OP has yet to show up right?

 

[Pythagorean]

I think "task" is too arbitrarily defined. With some training, anyone can pat their head and rub their belly, but clearly cell phone use combined with driving compromises driving abilities. The wiki has some peer-reviewed literature on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#cite_note-Laberge-Nadeau2003-1

So I think the question of whether multitasking is possible or not hinges on the nature and scope of each task and the relationship between the tasks, as well as the experience and aptitude of the agent.

 

[Evo]

I think "task" is too arbitrarily defined. With some training, anyone can pat their head and rub their belly, but clearly cell phone use combined with driving compromises driving abilities. The wiki has some peer-reviewed literature on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#cite_note-Laberge-Nadeau2003-1

So I think the question of whether multitasking is possible or not hinges on the nature and scope of each task and the relationship between the tasks, as well as the experience and aptitude of the agent.

Yes. The problem with cell phone use is that the person gets caught up in the discussion and loses their focus on driving, it takes a back seat to their texting/talking. It's not just a task. And it requires physically looking away from the road. When you're moving in a vehicle weighing a couple of tons at what can be high speeds, with other things moving around you that require observing, it's insane. Even if you are just talking, you get wrapped up in thinking about the discussion. You more or less zone out.

 

[Best Pokemon]

On an episode of the "Numbers Game" on NatGeo, the host (who is a data scientist) said that studies show that multitasking isn't productive. They also demonstrated it by having two guys doing a woodwork project and send out a lot of important texts/emails. One guy multitasked and the other didn't. The one that didn't multitask finished both activities in the allotted time but the multitasker failed to finish either activity.

I would have to search for those studies.

 

[Evo]

On an episode of the "Numbers Game" on NatGeo, the host (who is a data scientist) said that studies show that multitasking isn't productive. They also demonstrated it by having two guys doing a woodwork project and send out a lot of important texts/emails. One guy multitasked and the other didn't. The one that didn't multitask finished both activities in the allotted time but the multitasker failed to finish either activity.

I would have to search for those studies.

Well, the study I posted shows that 2 tasks can be performed simultaneously in two hemispheres of the brain. As far as productivity goes, it would depend on the tasks, the person, how familiar they are with multi-tasking. Some people are too easily distracted and would not do well, others would do well. Obviously if you are on the phone 10 minutes with someone and type the conversation as you are speaking and your notes are finished when you hang up, both tasks took 10 minutes total. But if you talk for ten minutes and then only start to type after you've hung up, not only will you be less likely to recall the details of what to type, but then you've got the added time to write everything up. So, doing at least two tasks at once can be more productive.

 

[Filip Larsen]

(I've only read this thread very briefly, so apologies in advance if I'm repeating someone else)

In aviation psychology the ability to multitask has, not surprisingly, been studied a lot. According to [1], humans are able to perform selected visual, auditory and motor tasks (like low-level flying or basic communication over radio) while performing other selected cognitive tasks (like navigating via heads up displays) in a true multitasking fashion (i.e. not task switching). That is to say, a trained pilot is able fly a plane low over the ground based on the "optical flow" alone without having to think about it (similar, I guess, to the ability that most drivers have to drive their car on a well-known route in normal traffic without conscious effort). Many other sub-tasks that initially appear cognitive (like operating switches and knobs on the panels) can with training be pushed out as subconscioustasks that can be performed simultaneously with cognitive tasks. However, many of the tasks that a pilot (especially, a combat pilot) has to perform are cognitive tasks that cannot be performed simultaneously, but have to be switched between in a round robin fashion (like instrument scan combined with navigation). I understand that for most people it will require some serious training to get the skill of being able to make fast task switching between multiple tasks without getting your cognitive attention stuck on one of the task for too long, hinting that task switching is not a natural thing to do for the human mind.

A coworker taking instrument rating (IFR) for his private license once told me his instructor asked him what 4 plus 5 was during an instrument scan training flight, and he was simply not able to answer. He was cognitive so busy scanning just the instruments that there was no room for him to do schedule in a "simple" addition task in his task switching. I suspect that the extra cognitive load in such situations is not necessarily the primary task itself (like adding two number) but more that the whole package requires a relative large amount of cognitive effort in order to "comprehend and structure" the task initially. With training, some of the cognitive load of this task comprehension can probably be replaced with non-cognitive recognition allowing much better task switching. I guess this is also why distinct visual and auditory signals (in cockpits and man-machine interfaces) are often used as indicators for tasks that requires fast response.


[1] Principles and Practice of Aviation Psychology, Tsang and Vidulich, Erlbaum 2003.

 

[Viracocha]

Try simple stuff to train yourself to multitask. For instance, try listening to music while watching tv and being on your computer, eventually you'll get the hang of multitasking for more complex things.