Literature DB >> 21562312

One to four, and nothing more: nonconscious parallel individuation of objects during action planning.

Jason P Gallivan1, Craig S Chapman, Daniel K Wood, Jennifer L Milne, Daniel Ansari, Jody C Culham, Melvyn A Goodale.   

Abstract

Much of the current understanding about the capacity limits on the number of objects that can be simultaneously processed comes from studies of visual short-term memory, attention, and numerical cognition. Consistent reports suggest that, despite large variability in the perceptual tasks administered (e.g., object tracking, counting), a limit of three to four visual items can be independently processed in parallel. In the research reported here, we asked whether this limit also extends to the domain of action planning. Using a unique rapid visuomotor task and a novel analysis of reach trajectories, we demonstrated an upper limit to the number of targets that can be simultaneously encoded for action, a capacity limit that also turns out to be no more than three to four. Our findings suggest that conscious perceptual processing and nonconscious movement planning are constrained by a common underlying mechanism limited by the number of items that can be simultaneously represented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21562312     DOI: 10.1177/0956797611408733

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  23 in total

1.  Rapid Automatic Motor Encoding of Competing Reach Options.

Authors:  Jason P Gallivan; Brandie M Stewart; Lee A Baugh; Daniel M Wolpert; J Randall Flanagan
Journal:  Cell Rep       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 9.423

2.  Multiple-object tracking and visually guided touch.

Authors:  Mallory E Terry; Lana M Trick
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Parallel specification of competing sensorimotor control policies for alternative action options.

Authors:  Jason P Gallivan; Lindsey Logan; Daniel M Wolpert; J Randall Flanagan
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 24.884

4.  The sequential encoding of competing action goals involves dynamic restructuring of motor plans in working memory.

Authors:  Jason P Gallivan; Natasha A R Bowman; Craig S Chapman; Daniel M Wolpert; J Randall Flanagan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-03-30       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 5.  Tracking continuities in the flanker task: From continuous flow to movement trajectories.

Authors:  Christopher D Erb; Katie A Smith; Jeff Moher
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Reaching decisions during ongoing movements.

Authors:  Julien Michalski; Andrea M Green; Paul Cisek
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Small number preference in guiding attention.

Authors:  Yong-Chun Cai; Shuang-Xia Li
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Spontaneous in-flight accommodation of hand orientation to unseen grasp targets: A case of action blindsight.

Authors:  Emily K Prentiss; Colleen L Schneider; Zoë R Williams; Bogachan Sahin; Bradford Z Mahon
Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 9.  Decision-making in sensorimotor control.

Authors:  Jason P Gallivan; Craig S Chapman; Daniel M Wolpert; J Randall Flanagan
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 34.870

10.  Two systems of non-symbolic numerical cognition.

Authors:  Daniel C Hyde
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.