Cover not available

Article published In: The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 20:1 (2025) ► pp.93–121

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The impact of walking and visual distraction on lexicality judgements

 | McGill UniversityMontrealQC | Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater MontrealMontrealQC
 | Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater MontrealMontrealQC
 | Université de MontréalMontrealQC
 | McGill UniversityMontrealQC
 | McGill UniversityMontrealQC
 | McGill UniversityMontrealQC
 | McGill UniversityMontrealQC
 | McGill UniversityMontrealQC
 | McGill UniversityMontrealQC
 | University of AlbertaEdmontonAB
 | McGill UniversityMontrealQC
 | Brock UniversitySt. CatharinesON
 | McGill UniversityMontrealQC | Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater MontrealMontrealQC
Published online: 22 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.24002.vin
Abstract
Walking has been the focus of much of the existing work on multitasking given its complexity as a cognitive process and importance in daily life. This complexity is evidenced by gait variation observed in dual-task contexts. However, an open question concerns how walking effects concurrently performed cognitive tasks. Thus, we use virtual reality to investigate how walking and visual distraction modulate language processing in an ecologically valid, yet controlled manner. In this novel experimental paradigm, we gradually increase the cognitive burden on participants’ lexical decision responses by adding visual distractors and concurrent walking demands. Accordingly, healthy, young participants performed a lexical decision task as either (1) a single-task+, while seated and with randomly appearing visual distractors, or as (2) a multitask, while walking on a self-paced treadmill through a VR city scape including visual distractors. Participants generally made faster lexical decisions while walking. However, in the single-task+ condition, participants made more errors when a distractor was present. These effects were somewhat modulated by individual differences in visual processing. Crucially, no clear dual-task cost was observed; rather, behavior adapted to increased demands within a specific domain. Overall, these findings suggest an interplay of both task-related and individual characteristics determining multitask performance.
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • The present study
  • Methods
    • Participants
      • Lexical Decision Task (LDT)
      • Visuospatial Scanning Task (VISSTA)
    • Procedure
      • Session 1
      • Session 2
  • Analysis 1: Multitask performance
    • Statistical models
    • Error rate
    • Correct response time
  • Analysis 2: Individual differences in visual processing
    • Data preprocessing
    • Error rate
    • Correct response time
  • Supplementary analysis: Generalized additive mixed model
    • Error rate
    • Correct response time
  • Discussion
  • Limitations & future directions
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (53)
References
Al-Yahya, E., Dawes, H., Smith, L., Dennis, A., Howells, K., & Cockburn, J. (2011). Cognitive motor interference while walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 715–728. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Agostini, V., Lo Fermo, F., Massazza, G., & Knaflitz, M. (2015). Does texting while walking really affect gait in young adults?. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 12(1), 86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakker, M., Overeem, S., Snijders, A. H., Borm, G., Van Elswijk, G., Toni, I., & Bloem, B. R. (2008). Motor imagery of foot dorsiflexion and gait: effects on corticospinal excitability. Clinical Neurophysiology, 119(11), 2519–2527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barber, H. A., & Kutas, M. (2007). Interplay between computational models and cognitive electrophysiology in visual word recognition. Brain Research Reviews, 53(1), 98–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barin, E. N., McLaughlin, C. M., Farag, M. W., Jensen, A. R., Upperman, J. S., & Arbogast, H. (2018). Heads up, phones down: A pedestrian safety intervention on distracted crosswalk behavior. Journal of community health, 431, 810–815. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beurskens, R., & Bock, O. (2013). Does the walking task matter? Influence of different walking conditions on dual-task performances in young and older persons. Human movement science, 32(6), 1456–1466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, H., & Scopatz, B. (2016). Pedestrian and driver distraction: overview & NHTSA prevalence and risk study. In 10th University Transportation Centre Spotlight Conference: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Keck Centre, Washing, DC.
Demura, S., & Uchiyama, M. (2009). Influence of cell phone email use on characteristics of gait. European Journal of Sport Science, 9(5), 303–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erez, A. B. H., Kizony, R., Shahar, M., & Katz, N. (2006). Visual spatial search task (VISSTA): a computerized assessment and training program. ICDVRAT 2006, 13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, J. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(15), 1–27. [URL]
Fung, J., Richards, C. L., Malouin, F., McFadyen, B. J., Lamontagne, A. (2006). A treadmill and motion coupled virtual reality system for gait training post-stroke. Cyberpsychology and Behavior 9(2):157–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrod, S. (2006). Psycholinguistic research methods. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harada, T., Miyai, I., Suzuki, M., & Kubota, K. (2009). Gait capacity affects cortical activation patterns related to speed control in the elderly. Experimental brain research, 1931, 445–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horberry, T., Anderson, J., Regan, M. A., Triggs, T. J., & Brown, J. (2006). Driver distraction: The effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(1), 185–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huda, S., Rodriguez, R., Lastra, L., Warren, M., Lacourse, M. G., Cohen, M. J., & Cramer, S. C. (2008). Cortical activation during foot movements: II effect of movement rate and side. Neuroreport, 19(16), 1573–1577. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyman Jr, I. E., Boss, S. M., Wise, B. M., McKenzie, K. E., & Caggiano, J. M. (2010). Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 597–607. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iseki, K., Hanakawa, T., Shinozaki, J., Nankaku, M., & Fukuyama, H. (2008). Neural mechanisms involved in mental imagery and observation of gait. Neuroimage, 41(3), 1021–1031. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063, pp. 218–226). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking — An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological bulletin, 144(6), 557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krasovsky, T., Weiss, P. L., & Kizony, R. (2017). A narrative review of texting as a visually-dependent cognitive-motor secondary task during locomotion. Gait & posture, 521, 354–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of statistical software, 821, 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lajoie, Y., Teasdale, N., Bard, C., & Fleury, M. (1996). Attentional demands for walking: Age-related changes. In Advances in Psychology (Vol. 1141, pp. 235–256). North-Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larue, G. S., Watling, C. N., Black, A. A., Wood, J. M., & Khakzar, M. (2020). Pedestrians distracted by their smartphone: Are in-ground flashing lights catching their attention? A laboratory study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 1341, 105346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, K. Z. H., Lindenberger, U., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2001). Walking while memorizing: Age-related differences in compensatory behavior. Psychological Science, 12(3), 230–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Licence, S., Smith, R., McGuigan, M. P., & Earnest, C. P. (2015). Gait pattern alterations during walking, texting and walking and texting during cognitively distractive tasks while negotiating common pedestrian obstacles. PLoS one, 10(7), e0133281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Gait pattern alterations during walking, texting and walking and texting during cognitively distractive tasks while negotiating common pedestrian obstacles. PLoS one, 10(7), e0133281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, M. I. B., & Huang, Y. P. (2017). The impact of walking while using a smartphone on pedestrians’ awareness of roadside events. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 1011, 87–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Massol, S., Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2011). When less is more: Feedback, priming, and the pseudoword superiority effect. Brain research, 13861, 153–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazaheri, M., Roerdink, M., Bood, R. J., Duysens, J., Beek, P. J., & Peper, C. L. E. (2014). Attentional costs of visually guided walking: effects of age, executive function and stepping-task demands. Gait & posture, 40(1), 182–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moghimi, D., Scheibe, S., & Freund, A. M. (2019). The model of selection, optimization, compensation. In Work across the lifespan (pp. 81–110). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I. & Chertkow, H. (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological bulletin, 116(2), 220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pešić, D., Antić, B., Glavić, D., & Milenković, M. (2016). The effects of mobile phone use on pedestrian crossing behaviour at unsignalized intersections–Models for predicting unsafe pedestrians behaviour. Safety science, 821, 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plummer, P., Eskes, G., Wallace, S., Giuffrida, C., Fraas, M., Campbell, G. & Skidmore, E. R. (2013). Cognitive-motor interference during functional mobility after stroke: state of the science and implications for future research. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 94(12), 2565–2574. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Podsiadlo, D., & Richardson, S. (1991). The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. Journal of the American geriatrics Society, 39(2), 142–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological review, 111(1), 159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance, 27(4), 763.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., Leclerc, J. C., Lapierre, M., Burkholder, M., & Brien, C. (2016). The language background questionnaire in L2 research: Teasing apart the variables. In Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, Calgary, Canada.
Sahyoun, C., Floyer-Lea, A., Johansen-Berg, H., & Matthews, P. M. (2004). Towards an understanding of gait control: brain activation during the anticipation, preparation and execution of foot movements. Neuroimage, 21(2), 568–575. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sangani, S., Erez, A. B. H., Katz, N., Fung, J., Kodesh, E., & Kizony, R. A New Generation Of The Computerized Visual Spatial Search Task (VISSTA) As An Authoring tool For Rehabilitation Assessment And Intervention. ICDVRAT-ITAG 2018, 2781.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scerra, V. E., & Brill, J. C. (2012, September). Effect of task modality on dual-task performance, response time, and ratings of operator workload. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 1456–1460). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schabrun, S. M., van den Hoorn, W., Moorcroft, A., Greenland, C., & Hodges, P. W. (2014). Texting and walking: strategies for postural control and implications for safety. PloS one, 9(1), e84312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solah, M. S., Deros, B. M., Jawi, Z. M., Harun, N. Z., Hamzah, A., & Ariffin, A. H. (2016). The effects of mobile electronic device use in influencing pedestrian crossing behaviour. Malaysian Journal of Public Health Medicine, 16(Special Volume (1)), 61–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suzuki, M., Miyai, I., Ono, T., Oda, I., Konishi, I., Kochiyama, T. & Kubota, K. (2004). Prefrontal and premotor cortices are involved in adapting walking and running speed on the treadmill: an optical imaging study. Neuroimage 231:1020–1026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tombaugh, T. N. (2004). Trail Making Test A and B: normative data stratified by age and education. Archives of clinical neuropsychology, 19(2), 203–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human factors, 50(3), 449–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. [URL]
Woollacott, M., & Shumway-Cook, A. (2002). Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait & posture, 16(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait & posture, 16(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yogev-Seligmann, G., Hausdorff, J. M., & Giladi, N. (2008). The role of executive function and attention in gait. Movement disorders: official journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 23(3), 329–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue