The present dissertation focuses on multitasking abilities in simultaneous interpreters on the one hand, and in orchestra conductors on the other, as both professions require the execution of highly specific and highly complex tasks. The theoretical investigation is two-fold: First, we analyse the cognitive constraints and functions involved in multitasking, notably in continuous multitasking. Here we highlight the central role of context and conflict monitoring and of goal maintenance in the control mechanisms at play, supporting the hypothesis that two control modes, proactive and reactive, interact. Second, we seek to identify the various types of control skills necessary for successful multitasking for the specific purposes of interpreting and conducting, in order to derive possible implications of specific multitasking expertise for the processing of new, continuous multiple tasks.

A behavioural experiment was designed to investigate whether conductors, interpreters, or both, show exceptional proficiency in a concurrent task paradigm compared to a control group. Individual variables potentially linked to higher scores in the exercise were also accounted for and analysed. We investigated the groups’ performance with regard to processing speed and the differential involvement of reactive and proactive mechanisms of control reflected in conflict monitoring and goal maintenance measures. The experimental task, administered before and after repeated single-task exposure, was comprised of a visual-verbal 2-back component and an auditory task requiring the maintenance of a covert count of an intertwined series of beeps. The findings suggest that performing continuous concurrent tasks is possible. Consistency in good multitasking performance was observed as well as performance improvements after training. In addition, while the groups’ performance did not differ significantly in terms of accuracy, distinct patterns of performance and progression were identified between the expert groups. Interpreters and conductors showed differences in reaction time and post-error slowing, which suggest that they tend to rely on different control modes. Varying degrees of adaptability also appeared between the three groups. Regarding multitasking performance, there appears to be little manifestation of reactive control during performance in the first iteration of the dual task, while in the second iteration participants appear to rely advantageously on some degree of automation and reactive control. This suggests that the proactive and reactive modes of control may play distinct roles in reaching optimal performance at the various stages of training.