Top

Gepubliceerd in:

30-11-2016 | Original Article

Trial-by-trial switching between procedural and declarative categorization systems

Auteurs: Matthew J. Crossley, Jessica L. Roeder, Sebastien Helie, F. Gregory Ashby

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2018

Abstract

Considerable evidence suggests that human category learning recruits multiple memory systems. A popular assumption is that procedural memory is used to form stimulus-to-response mappings, whereas declarative memory is used to form and test explicit rules about category membership. The multiple systems framework has been successful in motivating and accounting for a broad array of empirical observations over the past 20 years. Even so, only a couple of studies have examined how the different categorization systems interact. Both previous studies suggest that switching between explicit and procedural responding is extremely difficult. But they leave unanswered the critical questions of whether trial-by-trial system switching is possible, and if so, whether it is qualitatively different than trial-by-trial switching between two explicit tasks. The experiment described in this article addressed these questions. The results (1) confirm that effective trial-by-trial system switching, although difficult, is possible; (2) suggest that switching between tasks mediated by different memory systems is more difficult than switching between two declarative memory tasks; and (3) point to a serious shortcoming of current category-learning theories.

vorige artikel Effects of reward and punishment on the interaction between going and stopping in a selective stop-change task

volgende artikel Sharing tasks or sharing actions? Evidence from the joint Simon task

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

This account actually predicts that a button-switch should cause catastrophic interference in procedural strategies, which has never been observed in an II task. We recently proposed a revision to this classic account that correctly predicts a more moderate button-switch interference (Cantwell, Crossley, & Ashby, 2015). The key point, however, is simply that button-switches reliably interfere with II tasks more robustly than they interfere with RB tasks.

Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., et al. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105(3), 442.CrossRefPubMed

Ashby, F. G., & Crossley, M. J. (2010). Interactions between declarative and procedural-learning categorization systems. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 94(1), 1–12.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Ashby, F. G., Ell, S. W., & Waldron, E. M. (2003). Procedural learning in perceptual categorization. Memory and Cognition, 31(7), 1114–1125.CrossRefPubMed

Ashby, F. G., & Ennis, J. M. (2006). The role of the basal ganglia in category learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 46, 1.CrossRef

Ashby, F. G., & Gott, R. E. (1988). Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 33.PubMed

Ashby, F. G., & O’Brien, J. B. (2005). Category learning and multiple memory systems. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 2, 83–89.

Ashby, F. G., Waldron, E. M., Lee, W. W., & Berkman, A. (2001). Suboptimality in human categorization and identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 77.CrossRef

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.CrossRefPubMed

Brown, R., & Marsden, C. (1988). Internal versus external cues and the control of attention in Parkinson’s disease. Brain, 111(2), 323–345.CrossRefPubMed

Cantwell, G., Crossley, M. J., & Ashby, F. G. (2015). Multiple stages of learning in perceptual categorization: Evidence and neurocomputational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1–16.

Chiu, Y.-C., & Yantis, S. (2009). A domain-independent source of cognitive control for task sets: shifting spatial attention and switching categorization rules. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(12), 3930–3938.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Eichenbaum, H., & Cohen, N. J. (2001). From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the brain. Oxford University Press.

Erickson, M. A. (2008). Executive attention and task switching in category learning: Evidence for stimulus-dependent representation. Memory and Cognition, 36(4), 749–761.CrossRefPubMed

Erickson, M. A., & Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2), 107.CrossRef

Filoteo, J. V., Maddox, W. T., Salmon, D. P., & Song, D. D. (2005). Information-integration category learning in patients with striatal dysfunction. Neuropsychology, 19(2), 212.CrossRefPubMed

Filoteo, J. V., Maddox, W. T., Song, D. D., et al. (2007). Characterizing rule-based category learning deficits in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 45(2), 305–320.CrossRefPubMed

Fukunaga, K. (1990). Introduction to statistical pattern recognition. Academic press.

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switchingâĂŤ review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874.CrossRefPubMed

Knowlton, B. J., Mangels, J. A., & Squire, L. R. (1996). A neostriatal habit learning system in humans. Science, 273(5280), 1399–1402.CrossRefPubMed

Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1993). Comparing decision bound and exemplar models of categorization. Perception and Psychophysics, 53(1), 49–70.CrossRefPubMed

Maddox, W. T., Ashby, F. G., Ing, A. D., & Pickering, A. D. (2004). Disrupting feedback processing interferes with rule-based but not information-integration category learning. Memory and Cognition, 32(4), 582–591.CrossRefPubMed

Maddox, W. T., Bohil, C. J., & Ing, A. D. (2004). Evidence for a procedural-learning-based system in perceptual category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11(5), 945–952.CrossRefPubMed

Maddox, W. T., Glass, B. D., O’Brien, J. B., Filoteo, J. V., & Ashby, F. G. (2010). Category label and response location shifts in category learning. Psychological Research, 74(2), 219–236.CrossRefPubMed

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.CrossRefPubMed

Muhammad, R., Wallis, J. D., & Miller, E. K. (2006). A comparison of abstract rules in the prefrontal cortex, premotor cortex, inferior temporal cortex, and striatum. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(6), 974–989.CrossRefPubMed

Nagahama, Y., Okada, T., Katsumi, Y., Hayashi, T., Yamauchi, H., Oyanagi, C., et al. (2001). Dissociable mechanisms of attentional control within the human prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 11(1), 85–92.

Nomura, E., Maddox, W., Filoteo, J., Ing, A., Gitelman, D., Parrish, T., et al. (2007). Neural correlates of rule-based and information-integration visual category learning. Cerebral Cortex, 17(1), 37–43.

Nosofsky, R. M., Stanton, R. D., & Zaki, S. R. (2005). Procedural interference in perceptual classification: Implicit learning or cognitive complexity? Memory and Cognition, 33(7), 1256–1271.CrossRefPubMed

Philipp, A. M., Weidner, R., Koch, I., & Fink, G. R. (2013). Differential roles of inferior frontal and inferior parietal cortex in task switching: Evidence from stimulus-categorization switching and response-modality switching. Human Brain Mapping, 34(8), 1910–1920.CrossRefPubMed

Ravizza, S. M., & Carter, C. S. (2008). Shifting set about task switching: Behavioral and neural evidence for distinct forms of cognitive flexibility. Neuropsychologia, 46(12), 2924–2935.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rushworth, M., Hadland, K., Paus, T., & Sipila, P. (2002). Role of the human medial frontal cortex in task switching: a combined fmri and tms study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87(5), 2577–2592.CrossRefPubMed

Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.CrossRef

Seger, C. A., & Cincotta, C. M. (2006). Dynamics of frontal, striatal, and hippocampal systems during rule learning. Cerebral Cortex, 16(11), 1546–1555.CrossRefPubMed

Squire, L. R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 82(3), 171–177.CrossRefPubMed

Stelzel, C., Basten, U., & Fiebach, C. J. (2011). Functional connectivity separates switching operations in the posterior lateral frontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3529–3539.CrossRefPubMed

Treutwein, B., Rentschler, I., & Caelli, T. (1989). Perceptual spatial frequency–orientation surface: psychophysics and line element theory. Biological Cybernetics, 60(4), 285–295.CrossRefPubMed

Tulving, E., & Craik, F, I. (2000). The Oxford handbook of memory. Oxford University Press.

Waldron, E. M., & Ashby, F. G. (2001). The effects of concurrent task interference on category learning: Evidence for multiple category learning systems. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8(1), 168–176.CrossRefPubMed

Witt, S. T., & Stevens, M. C. (2013). fmri task parameters influence hemodynamic activity in regions implicated in mental set switching. NeuroImage, 65, 139–151.CrossRefPubMed

Wylie, G., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of "switch costs". Psychological Research, 63(3–4), 212–233.CrossRefPubMed

Zeithamova, D., & Maddox, W. T. (2006). Dual-task interference in perceptual category learning. Memory and cognition, 34(2), 387–398.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Trial-by-trial switching between procedural and declarative categorization systems
Auteurs: Matthew J. Crossley
Jessica L. Roeder
Sebastien Helie
F. Gregory Ashby
Publicatiedatum: 30-11-2016
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0828-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2018

Spatial attention across perception and action

Sharing tasks or sharing actions? Evidence from the joint Simon task

How to point and to interpret pointing gestures? Instructions can reduce pointer–observer misunderstandings

Conflict and disfluency as aversive signals: context-specific processing adjustments are modulated by affective location associations

Modulating adaptation to emotional faces by spatial frequency filtering

Now you make false memories; now you do not: the order of presentation of words in DRM lists influences the production of the critical lure in Alzheimer’s disease