Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

01-04-2019 | Original Article

Task structure boundaries affect response preparation

Auteurs: Savannah L. Cookson, Eliot Hazeltine, Eric H. Schumacher

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Does cognitive control operate globally (across task sets) or locally (within a task set)? Recently, two of the current co-authors (Hazeltine and Schumacher 2016; Schumacher and Hazeltine 2016) proposed that humans represent tasks as task files: hierarchically structured, compartmentalized subsets of our current goals and motivations, task instructions, and relevant stimuli and responses that are selected during task performance according to associated contextual rules. Here, we hypothesize that these task representations bound the implementation of cognitive control at distinct levels of this hierarchical structure. To investigate how task structure influences the implementation of control processes, we conducted a pair of experiments that utilized a precuing procedure. To manipulate task structure, we gave participants mappings in which two stimulus sets were either mapped so that each set was separated by response hand or both sets were interleaved across hands. In Experiment 1, participants responded to sets of images distinguished by their semantic category; in Experiment 2, they responded to sets based on different perceptual features (viz., location or color). During each experiment, precues could give information about the stimulus category or response hand for the upcoming target. The results indicate that participants with separated mappings represented the task hierarchically, while those with interleaved mappings did not. This pattern was consistent across experiments, despite the differences in the way that each set of stimuli influenced representation of the low-level task features. These findings suggest that task structure can be represented hierarchically, and that this structure supports distinct cognitive control processes at different hierarchical levels.
Voetnoten
1
The datasets generated during the current studies are available from the corresponding author on request.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Hazeltine, E., Lightman, E., Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2011). The boundaries of sequential modulations: Evidence for set-level control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,37(6), 1898.PubMed Hazeltine, E., Lightman, E., Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2011). The boundaries of sequential modulations: Evidence for set-level control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,37(6), 1898.PubMed
go back to reference Hazeltine, E., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Understanding central processes: The case against simple stimulus-response associations and for complex task representation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 64, pp. 195–245). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press. Hazeltine, E., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Understanding central processes: The case against simple stimulus-response associations and for complex task representation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 64, pp. 195–245). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press.
go back to reference Martinez, A. M., & Benavente, R. (1998). The AR face database. CVC Technical Report, 24. Martinez, A. M., & Benavente, R. (1998). The AR face database. CVC Technical Report, 24.
go back to reference Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging,16(1), 96.CrossRef Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging,16(1), 96.CrossRef
go back to reference Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: In search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,8(2), 273–296.PubMed Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: In search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,8(2), 273–296.PubMed
go back to reference Miller, J. (1983). Can response preparation begin before stimulus recognition finishes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,9(2), 161–182.PubMed Miller, J. (1983). Can response preparation begin before stimulus recognition finishes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,9(2), 161–182.PubMed
go back to reference Reeve, T., & Proctor, R. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,10(4), 541–553. Reeve, T., & Proctor, R. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,10(4), 541–553.
go back to reference Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109(4), 444.CrossRef Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109(4), 444.CrossRef
go back to reference Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The movement precuing technique: Assumptions, applications, and extensions. Advances in Psychology,12, 231–274.CrossRef Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The movement precuing technique: Assumptions, applications, and extensions. Advances in Psychology,12, 231–274.CrossRef
go back to reference Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V. (1994). ‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,4(2), 157–165.CrossRef Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V. (1994). ‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,4(2), 157–165.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Task structure boundaries affect response preparation
Auteurs
Savannah L. Cookson
Eliot Hazeltine
Eric H. Schumacher
Publicatiedatum
01-04-2019
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01171-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2020

Psychological Research 6/2020 Naar de uitgave