Literature DB >> 18178512

Attention, intention and domain-specific processing.

Matthew Finkbeiner1, Kenneth I Forster.   

Abstract

Many researchers use subliminal priming to investigate domain-specific processing mechanisms, which have classically been defined in terms of their autonomy from other cognitive systems. Surprisingly, recent research has demonstrated that nonconsciously elicited cognitive processes are not independent of attention. By extension, these findings have been used to call into question the autonomy of domain-specific processing mechanisms. By contrast, we argue that the demonstrated modulation of nonconscious cognitive processes by attention occurs at a predomain-specific stage of processing. Thus, although we agree that attention might be a prerequisite of nonconscious processes, we suggest that there is no reason to think that higher-level cognitive systems directly modulate domain-specific processes.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18178512     DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci        ISSN: 1364-6613            Impact factor:   20.229


  4 in total

1.  Event-related potential measures of the intending process: time course and related ERP components.

Authors:  Guangheng Dong; Yanbo Hu; Hui Zhou
Journal:  Behav Brain Funct       Date:  2010-02-24       Impact factor: 3.759

2.  The flexibility of nonconsciously deployed cognitive processes: evidence from masked congruence priming.

Authors:  Matthew Finkbeiner; Jason Friedman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-02-10       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Attentional routes to conscious perception.

Authors:  Ana B Chica; Paolo Bartolomeo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-01-18

4.  Trait-based cue Utilization and initial skill acquisition: implications for models of the progression to expertise.

Authors:  Mark W Wiggins; Sue Brouwers; Joel Davies; Thomas Loveday
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-06-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.