Literature DB >> 20167413

Deconstructing the tower: parameters and predictors of problem difficulty on the Tower of London task.

W Keith Berg1, Dana L Byrd, Joseph P H McNamara, Kimberly Case.   

Abstract

The Tower of London (TOL) task has been widely used in both clinical and research realms. In the current study, 104 healthy participants attempted all possible moderate- to high-difficulty TOL problems in order to determine: (1) optimal measures of problem solving performance, (2) problem characteristics, other than the minimum moves necessary to solve the problem, that determine participants' difficulty in solving problems successfully, quickly, and efficiently, and (3) effects of increased task experience on which problem characteristics determine problem difficulty. A factor analysis of six performance measures found that, regardless of task experience, problem difficulty could be captured well either by a single factor corresponding to general quality of solution or possibly by three subordinate factors corresponding to solution efficiency, solution speed, and initial planning speed. Regression analyses predicting these performance factors revealed that in addition to a problem's minimum moves three problem parameters were critical in determining the problem difficulty: goal position hierarchy, start position hierarchy, and number of solution paths available. The relative contributions of each of the characteristics strongly depended on which performance factor defined performance. We conclude that TOL problem performance is multifaceted, and that classifying problem difficulty using only the minimum moves necessary to solve the problem is inadequate. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20167413     DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2010.01.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Cogn        ISSN: 0278-2626            Impact factor:   2.310


  9 in total

1.  Planning deficits in HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders: component processes, cognitive correlates, and implications for everyday functioning.

Authors:  Jordan E Cattie; Katie Doyle; Erica Weber; Igor Grant; Steven Paul Woods
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 2.475

2.  The Effectiveness of Self-regulatory Speech Training for Planning and Problem Solving in Children with Specific Language Impairment.

Authors:  Safiyyah Abdul Aziz; Janet Fletcher; Donna M Bayliss
Journal:  J Abnorm Child Psychol       Date:  2016-08

3.  Executive functions and prefrontal cortex: a matter of persistence?

Authors:  Gareth Ball; Paul R Stokes; Rebecca A Rhodes; Subrata K Bose; Iead Rezek; Alle-Meije Wink; Louis-David Lord; Mitul A Mehta; Paul M Grasby; Federico E Turkheimer
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2011-01-25

4.  Planning steps forward in development: in girls earlier than in boys.

Authors:  Josef M Unterrainer; Nina Ruh; Sandra V Loosli; Katharina Heinze; Benjamin Rahm; Christoph P Kaller
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Age differences in high frequency phasic heart rate variability and performance response to increased executive function load in three executive function tasks.

Authors:  Dana L Byrd; Erin T Reuther; Joseph P H McNamara; Teri L DeLucca; William K Berg
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-03-05

6.  Hip Hop Dance Experience Linked to Sociocognitive Ability.

Authors:  Justin W Bonny; Jenna C Lindberg; Marc C Pacampara
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Planning Abilities in Bilingual and Monolingual Children: Role of Verbal Mediation.

Authors:  Ishanti Gangopadhyay; Margarethe McDonald; Susan Ellis Weismer; Margarita Kaushanskaya
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-03-14

8.  Age as a moderator of the relationship between planning and temporal information processing.

Authors:  Katarzyna Jablonska; Magdalena Stanczyk; Magdalena Piotrowska; Aneta Szymaszek; Barbara Lukomska; Hanna Bednarek; Elzbieta Szelag
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  Hierarchical processing in music, language, and action: Lashley revisited.

Authors:  W Tecumseh Fitch; Mauricio D Martins
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 5.691

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.