Literature DB >> 24760143

When cognitive control is not adaptive.

Bruno R Bocanegra1, Bernhard Hommel2.   

Abstract

In order to engage in goal-directed behavior, cognitive agents have to control the processing of task-relevant features in their environments. Although cognitive control is critical for performance in unpredictable task environments, it is currently unknown how it affects performance in highly structured and predictable environments. In the present study, we showed that, counterintuitively, top-down control can impair and interfere with the otherwise automatic integration of statistical information in a predictable task environment, and it can render behavior less efficient than it would have been without the attempt to control the flow of information. In other words, less can sometimes be more (in terms of cognitive control), especially if the environment provides sufficient information for the cognitive system to behave on autopilot based on automatic processes alone.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Keywords:  cognitive neuroscience; visual attention; visual perception

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24760143     DOI: 10.1177/0956797614528522

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


  11 in total

1.  The system neurophysiological basis of non-adaptive cognitive control: Inhibition of implicit learning mediated by right prefrontal regions.

Authors:  Ann-Kathrin Stock; Laura Steenbergen; Lorenza Colzato; Christian Beste
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  The impact of implicit and explicit suggestions that 'there is nothing to learn' on implicit sequence learning.

Authors:  Luc Vermeylen; Elger Abrahamse; Senne Braem; Davide Rigoni
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2020-08-04

3.  Toward a Functional View of the P Factor in Psychopathology.

Authors:  Charles S Carver; Sheri L Johnson; Kiara R Timpano
Journal:  Clin Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-06-11

4.  Causal Evidence for Learning-Dependent Frontal Lobe Contributions to Cognitive Control.

Authors:  Paul S Muhle-Karbe; Jiefeng Jiang; Tobias Egner
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 5.  Impulsive reactivity to emotion and vulnerability to psychopathology.

Authors:  Charles S Carver; Sheri L Johnson
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2018-12

6.  (No) time for control: Frontal theta dynamics reveal the cost of temporally guided conflict anticipation.

Authors:  Joram van Driel; Jennifer C Swart; Tobias Egner; K Richard Ridderinkhof; Michael X Cohen
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  The Intensity of Early Attentional Processing, but Not Conflict Monitoring, Determines the Size of Subliminal Response Conflicts.

Authors:  Wiebke Bensmann; Amirali Vahid; Christian Beste; Ann-Kathrin Stock
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  A neurally plausible schema-theoretic approach to modelling cognitive dysfunction and neurophysiological markers in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Andrea Caso; Richard P Cooper
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  The Role of DRD1 and DRD2 Receptors for Response Selection Under Varying Complexity Levels: Implications for Metacontrol Processes.

Authors:  Nicolas Zink; Wiebke Bensmann; Larissa Arning; Lorenza S Colzato; Ann-Kathrin Stock; Christian Beste
Journal:  Int J Neuropsychopharmacol       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 5.176

10.  On the Neurophysiological Mechanisms Underlying the Adaptability to Varying Cognitive Control Demands.

Authors:  Nicolas Zink; Ann-Kathrin Stock; Amirali Vahid; Christian Beste
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.