4.7 Review

Toward an understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying dual-task performance: Contribution of comparative approaches using animal models

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 84, Issue -, Pages 12-28

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.08.008

Keywords

Dual-task paradigm; Neuroimaging; Neuropsychology; Neurophysiology; Frontal lobe function; Working memory; Capacity limitation; Animal model; Comparative cognition

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [16K21686, 25240021, 15H01690]
  2. ImPACT Program of Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25240021, 16K21686] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study of dual-task performance in human subjects has received considerable interest in cognitive neuroscience because it can provide detailed insights into the neural mechanisms underlying higher-order cognitive control. Despite many decades of research, our understanding of the neurobiological basis of dual-task performance is still limited, and some critical questions are still under debate. Recently, behavioral and neurophysiological studies of dual-task performance in animals have begun to provide intriguing evidence regarding how dual-task information is processed in the brain. In this review, we first summarize key evidence in neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies in humans and discuss possible reasons for discrepancies across studies. We then provide a comprehensive review of the literature on dual-task studies in animals and provide a novel working hypothesis that may reconcile the divergent results in human studies toward a unified view of the mechanisms underlying dual-task processing. Finally, we propose possible directions for future dual-task experiments in the framework of comparative cognitive neuroscience.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available