Literature DB >> 27154228

Same task rules, different responses: Goal neglect, stimulus-response mappings and response modalities.

Matthew H Iveson1,2, Yuki Tanida3, Satoru Saito3.   

Abstract

To complete complex tasks, individuals must actively maintain task rules to direct behavior correctly. Failure to use task rules appropriately, termed goal neglect, has been shown across both vocal and manual response modalities. However, previous goal maintenance studies have differed not only in the response modality that they require, but also in the complexity of the stimulus-response mappings that participants must use during the task. The present study examines the effects of both response modality and stimulus-response mapping complexity, separately, on the rate of goal neglect in a modification of a classic goal maintenance task. Seventy-two younger adults were administered a shape-monitoring task, with three between-subjects response conditions: a vocal response with a simple stimulus-response mapping, a vocal response with a complex stimulus-response mapping, and a manual response with a complex stimulus-response mapping. Contrasting the rate at which task rules were neglected between response conditions showed that participants using complex stimulus-response mappings committed more frequent goal neglect than those using simple mappings, but that participants using vocal or manual responses did not differ in their rate of goal neglect once both responses required complex mappings. This suggests that the need to represent novel and complex stimulus-response mappings, of any modality, at the same time as novel task rules within working memory leads to some task rules being insufficiently maintained.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Goal maintenance; Working memory

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27154228     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1052-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  14 in total

1.  Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.

Authors:  Michael J Kane; Randall W Engle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2003-03

2.  Goal neglect and Spearman's g: competing parts of a complex task.

Authors:  John Duncan; Alice Parr; Alexandra Woolgar; Russell Thompson; Peter Bright; Sally Cox; Sonia Bishop; Ian Nimmo-Smith
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2008-02

3.  The role of cue-target translation in backward inhibition of attentional set.

Authors:  George Houghton; Rhys Pritchard; James A Grange
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Verbal representation in task order control: an examination with transition and task cues in random task switching.

Authors:  Erina Saeki; Satoru Saito
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-10

5.  Modulation of the attentional blink by on-line response selection: evidence from speeded and unspeeded task1 decisions.

Authors:  P Jolicoeur
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-09

6.  Are stimulus-response rules represented phonologically for task-set preparation and maintenance?

Authors:  Félice van 't Wout; Aureliu Lavric; Stephen Monsell
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework.

Authors:  Todd S Braver
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 20.229

8.  Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity.

Authors:  C M MacLeod; K Dunbar
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Task structure complexity and goal neglect in typically developing children.

Authors:  Gareth Roberts; Mike Anderson
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2013-12-31

10.  Goal neglect and knowledge chunking in the construction of novel behaviour.

Authors:  Apoorva Bhandari; John Duncan
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2013-10-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.