Literature DB >> 26331343

Automaticity: Componential, Causal, and Mechanistic Explanations.

Agnes Moors1,2.   

Abstract

The review first discusses componential explanations of automaticity, which specify non/automaticity features (e.g., un/controlled, un/conscious, non/efficient, fast/slow) and their interrelations. Reframing these features as factors that influence processes (e.g., goals, attention, and time) broadens the range of factors that can be considered (e.g., adding stimulus intensity and representational quality). The evidence reviewed challenges the view of a perfect coherence among goals, attention, and consciousness, and supports the alternative view that (a) these and other factors influence the quality of representations in an additive way (e.g., little time can be compensated by extra attention or extra stimulus intensity) and that (b) a first threshold of this quality is required for unconscious processing and a second threshold for conscious processing. The review closes with a discussion of causal explanations of automaticity, which specify factors involved in automatization such as repetition and complexity, and a discussion of mechanistic explanations, which specify the low-level processes underlying automatization.

Keywords:  attention; complexity; conscious; control; practice; representation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26331343     DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033550

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol        ISSN: 0066-4308            Impact factor:   24.137


  12 in total

1.  Automatic effects of instructions: a tale of two paradigms.

Authors:  Inbar Amir; Liran Peleg; Nachshon Meiran
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-09-28

Review 2.  How can caching explain automaticity?

Authors:  Nir Fresco; Joseph Tzelgov; Lior Shmuelof
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-10-12

3.  Don't let it distract you: how information about the availability of reward affects attentional selection.

Authors:  Michel Failing; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  The automaticity of face perception is influenced by familiarity.

Authors:  Xiaoqian Yan; Andrew W Young; Timothy J Andrews
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Automatized smoking-related action schemata are reflected by reduced fMRI activity in sensorimotor brain regions of smokers.

Authors:  Ayse Ilkay Isik; Marcus J Naumer; Jochen Kaiser; Christian Buschenlange; Sandro Wiesmann; Stefan Czoschke; Yavor Yalachkov
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 4.881

6.  When the Eyes No Longer Lead: Familiarity and Length Effects on Eye-Voice Span.

Authors:  Susana Silva; Alexandra Reis; Luís Casaca; Karl M Petersson; Luís Faísca
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-11-02

7.  The role of stimulus-driven versus goal-directed processes in fight and flight tendencies measured with motor evoked potentials induced by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

Authors:  Agnes Moors; Chiara Fini; Tom Everaert; Lara Bardi; Evelien Bossuyt; Peter Kuppens; Marcel Brass
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  On How Definitions of Habits Can Complicate Habit Research.

Authors:  Jan De Houwer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-11-29

9.  On the automaticity of relational stimulus processing: The (extrinsic) relational Simon task.

Authors:  Adriaan Spruyt; Jan De Houwer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Individual differences in anxiety and automatic amygdala response to fearful faces: A replication and extension of Etkin et al. (2004).

Authors:  Vivien Günther; Anja Hußlack; Anna-Sophie Weil; Anna Bujanow; Jeanette Henkelmann; Anette Kersting; Markus Quirin; Karl-Titus Hoffmann; Boris Egloff; Donald Lobsien; Thomas Suslow
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 4.881

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.