Subjective estimates of total processing time in dual-tasking: (some) good news for bad introspection

Bratzke, Daniel; Bryce, Donna · 2022 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1007/s00426-022-01762-z

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the accuracy of human introspection regarding time demands in dual-task performance, specifically within the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm. Previous research established that individuals are typically unaware of the PRP effect—the slowing of Task 2 responses due to temporal overlap with Task 1—when asked to estimate individual reaction times (IRTs). This "introspective blind spot" has been interpreted as evidence for a central processing bottleneck that excludes conscious perception. However, the authors argue that estimating total trial time (ITT) may be more relevant for strategic task scheduling than estimating individual sub-task durations. The study aimed to determine whether participants could accurately introspect about the total processing time of a dual-task trial, despite their inability to detect interference in individual reaction times. The experiment involved 16 participants performing an auditory-visual dual task with varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs: 50, 250, 1250 ms) and Task 2 perceptual difficulties. The design was counterbalanced: in one half of the experiment, participants provided IRT estimates for both tasks using a visual analog scale (VAS); in the other half, they provided ITT estimates. Objective reaction times and total trial times were recorded simultaneously. The analysis focused on comparing objective performance metrics with subjective estimates, examining the effects of SOA and Task 2 difficulty on both. The results replicated the standard PRP effect in objective data, showing significant slowing in Task 2 at short SOAs. Consistent with prior literature, IRTs showed no sensitivity to the PRP effect; participants failed to detect the interference in their individual reaction time estimates. However, ITTs accurately reflected the objective effects of SOA and Task 2 difficulty on total trial duration. Specifically, subjective total trial times increased with longer SOAs and greater Task 2 difficulty, mirroring the objective pattern. Correlational and regression analyses confirmed that the relationship between subjective and objective measures was significantly stronger for total trial time than for individual reaction times. Additionally, the study found that the order of introspective tasks influenced IRTs: participants who estimated ITTs first subsequently showed SOA effects in their IRTs, suggesting that awareness of total duration can bias individual time estimates. The findings indicate that while introspection of individual sub-task durations is distorted in the PRP paradigm, introspection of total trial time is accurate. This dissociation challenges the interpretation that the introspective blind spot reflects an amodal conscious perception bottleneck. Instead, it suggests that subjective representations of total time demands are reliable and may serve as a functional basis for strategic task scheduling and cognitive control. The study concludes that people possess accurate metacognitive access to the overall temporal cost of dual-tasking, even if they lack awareness of the specific interference mechanisms affecting individual tasks.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• time perception
• dual task multitasking