FilterHN

Task-Switching Experiment (2015)

54 points

by dang

2 months ago

| past

| 8 comments

| psytoolkit.org

| HN

▲

tgsovlerkhgsel

2 months ago

[-]

Performing the test in fixed order creates a risk of bias due to either training or exhaustion. With a sufficiently big data set, it would be interesting to show the test to different groups in different orders, or at least repeat one of the "easy" tests at the end.

I noticed that my performance significantly dropped towards the end because my brain was just fried.

(Also, who else did the test while task-switching to HN while waiting for something to finish?)

▲

makeitdouble

2 months ago

[-]

It's so interesting to be able to run the experiment and see for one-self, especially if it's really a matter of 10-15min.

It should be noted that research in this domain is usually done with multi-sensory tasks (e.g https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31277054/), and not same channel input like this experiment. It better balances the cognitive load and it's also more realistic, as most people multi-tasking will be using different resources, for instance filling a form while on the phone, or sitting a team meeting while releasing in production.

▲

hippari2

2 months ago

[-]

This is fun but I supposed you should not take this test more than a few times. After a while I notice that I read the whole ( shape, filling, position) as an input and it's quite a bit faster than initial timing.

▲

LoganDark

2 months ago

[-]

> For example, no matter how deeply you concentrate on doing a task, if you hear someone shout "fire", you will process that information and act on it.

Not necessarily with Dissociative Identity Disorder! (Or dissociative disorders in general)

▲

hislaziness

2 months ago

[-]

The screen seems to be stuck at Wait a second... for me.

▲

swah

2 months ago

[-]

I thought that that was the test, stuck here, help.

▲

dtran

2 months ago

[-]

https://www.psytoolkit.org/experiment-library/experiment_mul... for the actual runnable experiment. Shared my results below (I'm pretty tired at the moment so don't feel my sharpest)— super curious what others got.

I've been trying to eliminate multi-tasking as much as I can, but the nature of startups day-to-day and even what seems like a single/monotask when zoomed out now often involves context switching (For say, investigating and fixing a user-reported bug, I might have to toggle between VSCode, localhost in browser + the DOM inspector or console, our bug tracker, our support ticketing tool, Slack, and sometimes the Cody window in VS Code/ChatGPT/Claude:

  RT in pure trials: 448ms
  RT in mixed trials: 710ms
  Mixing cost: 262ms
  RT in task-repeat trials (in mixed blocks): 710ms
  RT in task-switching trials (in mixed blocks): 975ms
  Task-switch cost: 265ms

▲

dang

2 months ago

[-]

Yeah it might be more fun to have that be the top link, so I've switched it from https://www.psytoolkit.org/experiment-library/multitasking.h... now. Thanks!

Interested readers should take a look at both of course.

▲

userbinator

2 months ago

[-]

First time:

    RT in pure trials: 490ms
    RT in mixed trials: 825ms
    Mixing cost: 335ms
    RT in task-repeat trials (in mixed blocks): 825ms
    RT in task-switching trials (in mixed blocks): 969ms
    Task-switch cost: 144ms

Second time (while listening to music --- I decided to do this since I've noticed it somehow decreases my latency in typing tests significantly):

    RT in pure trials: 436ms
    RT in mixed trials: 673ms
    Mixing cost: 237ms
    RT in task-repeat trials (in mixed blocks): 673ms
    RT in task-switching trials (in mixed blocks): 746ms
    Task-switch cost: 73ms

Edit: third time, also while listening to music:

    RT in pure trials: 435ms
    RT in mixed trials: 608ms
    Mixing cost: 173ms
    RT in task-repeat trials (in mixed blocks): 608ms
    RT in task-switching trials (in mixed blocks): 700ms
    Task-switch cost: 92ms

I suspect this "game" is also amenable to practice, and find it at least a bit weirdly addictive in the same way as Flappy Bird.

▲

darthrupert

2 months ago

[-]

Fascinating that you're measuring milliseconds where I'm having context switches that cost me minutes to hours to days.

▲

userbinator

2 months ago

[-]

I don't think this game is all that representative of context-switching overhead, as my 4th attempt gives evidence that this improves quickly with practice:

    RT in pure trials: 422ms
    RT in mixed trials: 611ms
    Mixing cost: 189ms
    RT in task-repeat trials (in mixed blocks): 611ms
    RT in task-switching trials (in mixed blocks): 602ms
    Task-switch cost: -9ms

The "mixed trials" are naturally slower because I'm having to recognise 4 patterns instead of 2, but only by ~50%.

▲

dtran

2 months ago

[-]

Whoa, a negative task-switch cost! I didn't take it multiple times, but it makes sense that having practice at this specific task probably improves both your overall response times and maybe more specifically improves the different trials.

What I'm curious about is whether we also get specifically good at say, task-switching between a code editor and say, Stack Overflow, over time

▲

rickyyean

2 months ago

[-]

Here's mine on first-try:

  RT in pure trials: 463ms
  RT in mixed trials: 833ms
  Mixing cost: 369ms

  RT in task-repeat trials (in mixed blocks): 833ms
  RT in task-switching trials (in mixed blocks): 1040ms
  Task-switch cost: 207ms

▲

Balaakay

2 months ago

[-]

Very interesting. I will take some time tonight to run the demo. I am a big believer in not switching tasks if it can be avoided. I loved Cal Newport's book "A World Without Email" which discusses context switching in the 'information worker' space as something that brings productivity to a halt. I believe he is right.

▲

quzyp

2 months ago

[-]

  RT in pure trials: 511ms
  RT in mixed trials: 804ms
  Mixing cost: 293ms

  RT in task-repeat trials (in mixed blocks): 804ms
  RT in task-switching trials (in mixed blocks): 1026ms
  Task-switch cost: 222ms

I think this is very easy to "train" and would expect to see significant improvements on the second and third attempt.