Multitasking Test — Dual-Task Divided Attention Test
Track a bouncing dot and click when it turns red — while classifying flashed digits as odd or even. 16 dual-task rounds measure how much accuracy you keep when both tasks compete.
What this test measures
Divided attention: how well you keep two concurrent tasks going at once. The test runs 32 trials of 3 seconds each. The first 8 are unscored practice (4 per task), then 8 scored single-task trials establish your baseline on each task alone, and the final 16 are dual-task trials where both run simultaneously. Task one: track a bouncing dot and click it (or press space) the moment it turns red. Task two: a digit from 1-9 flashes — press O for odd or E for even. Your score is your average accuracy across both tasks in the dual-task block. The single-task rounds warm up each task on its own — in the laboratory version of this paradigm, comparing the two blocks yields the dual-task cost: how much accuracy each task loses when it has to share attention.
The science behind it
The dual-task paradigm has been a workhorse of attention research for nearly a century, from Telford's 1931 work on the psychological refractory period to Pashler's landmark 1994 review (Psychological Bulletin), which argued for a central bottleneck: the brain selects one response at a time, so two decisions queue up rather than run in parallel — even in trained experts. Wickens' multiple resource theory (2002) explains why some pairings hurt more than others: tasks competing for the same processing resources interfere the most. The interference is not academic — Strayer & Johnston 2001 (Psychological Science) used dual-task logic to show phone conversations measurably impair simulated driving. Research on gamers finds action video game players tend to distribute attention more efficiently across tasks (Dye, Green & Bavelier 2009; Dale & Green 2017).
How to improve your multitasking
Be skeptical of anyone promising to make you a parallel processor — the central bottleneck identified by Pashler does not train away. What does improve is automaticity: the more practiced each individual task becomes, the less central capacity it demands, leaving more room for the second task. Dual-task practice also helps, but gains tend to stay specific to the trained task pairing — the brain-training literature finds little broad transfer (Simons et al. 2016, Psychological Science in the Public Interest). One counterintuitive finding: chronic media multitasking does not build the skill. Heavy media multitaskers actually performed worse on laboratory multitasking and filtering tasks (Ophir, Nass & Wagner 2009, PNAS). Practice the component skills deeply; don't just do more things at once.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a good multitasking score?
Against our initial research-based norms (mean 65%, SD 15% dual-task accuracy), 80% puts you around the top 16% and 95% is roughly the top 2-3%. These parameters are estimates drawn from the dual-task literature (Pashler 1994; Wickens 2002) and will be recalibrated as our live sample grows.
Is multitasking real, or just fast task switching?
Mostly switching. Pashler's dual-task research points to a central bottleneck: response selection happens one decision at a time, so concurrent tasks queue and interfere with each other. Genuinely parallel performance only appears when at least one task is so practiced it runs almost automatically — which is why this test measures the accuracy you keep under interference, not a multitasking superpower.
Are heavy media multitaskers better at this test?
The evidence says the opposite. In a widely cited Stanford study, heavy media multitaskers performed worse on laboratory task-switching and distractor-filtering measures than light multitaskers (Ophir, Nass & Wagner 2009, PNAS). Constantly juggling media streams appears to train distractibility rather than attentional control.
Are gamers better at multitasking?
Studies of action video game players report advantages in distributing attention and switching between tasks (Dye, Green & Bavelier 2009; Dale & Green 2017). Part of this is likely self-selection, but training studies suggest action games can causally improve attention allocation. The effect is an edge, not an exemption — gamers still pay a dual-task cost like everyone else.
Why does the test make me do each task alone first?
The single-task rounds establish your baseline accuracy on each task by itself. Comparing that baseline to the dual-task block yields your dual-task cost — the standard interference measure in the research literature. Without a baseline, a low dual-task score could just mean one task was hard for you, not that dividing attention was the problem.
More Cognitive Tests
Judge digits under two alternating rules — blue asks 'greater than 5?', orange asks 'is it even?' — with the rule switching every 4 trials. Your score is your switch cost in milliseconds.
Watch cells light up on a 3×3 grid and press Match whenever the position repeats from exactly 2 steps back. 30 trials (28 scored) measure your working memory accuracy.
Memorize the red-flashing circles, track them as all 8 balls move for 5 seconds, then pick them out. 8 scored rounds, from 3 up to 5 targets.