A characteristic feature of human cognition is our ability to ‘multi-task’—performing two or more tasks in parallel—particularly when one task is well learned. How the brain supports this capacity remains poorly understood. Most past studies have focussed on identifying the areas of the brain—typically the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex—that are required to navigate information-processing bottlenecks. In contrast, we take a systems neuroscience approach to test the hypothesis that the capacity to conduct effective parallel processing relies on a distributed architecture that interconnects the cerebral cortex with the cerebellum. The latter structure contains over half of the neurons in the adult human brain and is well suited to support the fast, effective, dynamic sequences required to perform tasks relatively automatically. By delegating stereotyped within-task computations to the cerebellum, the cerebral cortex can be freed up to focus on the more challenging aspects of performing the tasks in parallel. To test this hypothesis, we analysed task-based fMRI data from 50 participants who performed a task in which they either balanced an avatar on a screen (balance), performed serial-7 subtractions (calculation) or performed both in parallel (dual task). Using a set of approaches that include dimensionality reduction, structure-function coupling, and time-varying functional connectivity, we provide robust evidence in support of our hypothesis. We conclude that distributed interactions between the cerebral cortex and cerebellum are crucially involved in parallel processing in the human brain. Author Summary How does the brain support the performance of multiple complex tasks, in parallel? The distributed architecture of the cerebellum is ideally placed to interact with the cerebral cortex, creating complex channels for segregated information processing that afford the execution of parallel tasks. Here, we apply time-resolved functional connectivity analyses to functional MRI data collected while individuals performed a dual task that required either balancing, calculating, or the two in tandem. We found robust evidence for distinct patterns of cortico-cerebellar connectivity as a function of task performance.

Most human neuroscience research to date has focused on statistical approaches that describe stationary patterns of localized neural activity or blood flow. While these patterns are often interpreted in light of dynamic, information-processing concepts, the static, local, and inferential nature of the statistical approach makes it challenging to directly link neuroimaging results to plausible underlying neural mechanisms. Here, we argue that dynamical systems theory provides the crucial mechanistic framework for characterizing both the brain’s time-varying quality and its partial stability in the face of perturbations, and hence, that this perspective can have a profound impact on the interpretation of human neuroimaging results and their relationship with behavior. After briefly reviewing some key terminology, we identify three key ways in which neuroimaging analyses can embrace a dynamical systems perspective: by shifting from a local to a more global perspective, by focusing on dynamics instead of static snapshots of neural activity, and by embracing modeling approaches that map neural dynamics using “forward” models. Through this approach, we envisage ample opportunities for neuroimaging researchers to enrich their understanding of the dynamic neural mechanisms that support a wide array of brain functions, both in health and in the setting of psychopathology. Author Summary The study of dynamical systems offers a powerful framework for interpreting neuroimaging data from a range of different contexts, however, as a field, we have yet to fully embrace the power of this approach. Here, we offer a brief overview of some key terms from the dynamical systems literature, and then highlight three ways in which neuroimaging studies can begin to embrace the dynamical systems approach: by shifting from local to global descriptions of activity, by moving from static to dynamic analyses, and by transitioning from descriptive to generative models of neural activity patterns.