Literature DB >> 27821256

The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus-response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs.

James R Schmidt1, Jan De Houwer2, Klaus Rothermund3.   

Abstract

The current paper presents an extension of the Parallel Episodic Processing model. The model is developed for simulating behaviour in performance (i.e., speeded response time) tasks and learns to anticipate both how and when to respond based on retrieval of memories of previous trials. With one fixed parameter set, the model is shown to successfully simulate a wide range of different findings. These include: practice curves in the Stroop paradigm, contingency learning effects, learning acquisition curves, stimulus-response binding effects, mixing costs, and various findings from the attentional control domain. The results demonstrate several important points. First, the same retrieval mechanism parsimoniously explains stimulus-response binding, contingency learning, and practice effects. Second, as performance improves with practice, any effects will shrink with it. Third, a model of simple learning processes is sufficient to explain phenomena that are typically (but perhaps incorrectly) interpreted in terms of higher-order control processes. More generally, we argue that computational models with a fixed parameter set and wider breadth should be preferred over those that are restricted to a narrow set of phenomena.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Binding; Computational modelling; Contingency learning; Episodic memory; Mixing costs; Practice

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27821256     DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  20 in total

1.  Selective binding of stimulus, response, and effect features.

Authors:  Birte Moeller; Roland Pfister; Wilfried Kunde; Christian Frings
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-10

Review 2.  Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review.

Authors:  James R Schmidt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-06

3.  Lost time: Bindings do not represent temporal order information.

Authors:  Birte Moeller; Christian Frings
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-02

4.  Distractor-based retrieval in action control: the influence of encoding specificity.

Authors:  Ruth Laub; Christian Frings
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-09-01

5.  Visual working memory load does not eliminate visuomotor repetition effects.

Authors:  Jason Rajsic; Matthew D Hilchey; Geoffrey F Woodman; Jay Pratt
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Unintentional response priming from verbal action-effect instructions.

Authors:  Yevhen Damanskyy; Torsten Martiny-Huenger; Elizabeth J Parks-Stamm
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-04-02

7.  Partial repetition costs index a mixture of binding and signaling.

Authors:  Daniel H Weissman; Lauren D Grant; Iring Koch; Eliot Hazeltine
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 2.157

8.  Best not to bet on the horserace: A comment on Forrin and MacLeod (2017) and a relevant stimulus-response compatibility view of colour-word contingency learning asymmetries.

Authors:  James R Schmidt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-02

Review 9.  Cortical and subcortical contributions to context-control learning.

Authors:  Yu-Chin Chiu; Tobias Egner
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 8.989

10.  Perception-Action Integration Is Modulated by the Catecholaminergic System Depending on Learning Experience.

Authors:  Elena Eggert; Annet Bluschke; Adam Takacs; Maximilian Kleimaker; Alexander Münchau; Veit Roessner; Moritz Mückschel; Christian Beste
Journal:  Int J Neuropsychopharmacol       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 5.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.