Literature DB >> 29173507

Following new task instructions: Evidence for a dissociation between knowing and doing.

Marcel Brass1, Baptist Liefooghe2, Senne Braem3, Jan De Houwer2.   

Abstract

The ability to follow new instructions is crucial for acquiring behaviors and the cultural transmission of performance-related knowledge. In this article, we discuss the observation that successful instruction following seems to require both the capacity to understand verbal information, but also the ability to transform this information into a procedural format. Here we review the behavioral and neuroimaging literature on following new instructions and discuss how it contributes to our understanding of the functional mechanisms underlying instruction following. Based on this review, we distinguish three phases of instruction following. In the instruction phase, the declarative information of the task instruction is transformed into a task model consisting of a structured representation of the relevant condition-action rules. In the implementation phase, elements of this task model are transformed into a highly accessible state guiding behavior. In the application phase, the relevant condition-action rules are applied. We discuss the boundary conditions and capacity limits of these phases, determine their neural correlates, and relate them to recent models of working memory.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Dissociation of knowing and doing; Frontoparietal network; Goal neglect; Instruction following; Prepared reflex

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29173507     DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.02.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev        ISSN: 0149-7634            Impact factor:   8.989


  13 in total

1.  Representational Organization of Novel Task Sets during Proactive Encoding.

Authors:  Ana F Palenciano; Carlos González-García; Juan E Arco; Luiz Pessoa; María Ruz
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  The instruction-based congruency effect predicts task execution efficiency: Evidence from inter- and intra-individual differences.

Authors:  Senne Braem; Berre Deltomme; Baptist Liefooghe
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2019-11

3.  Frequency of prospective use modulates instructed task-set interference.

Authors:  Peter S Whitehead; Tobias Egner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  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

Review 5.  Abstract task representations for inference and control.

Authors:  Avinash R Vaidya; David Badre
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 24.482

6.  Outcome contingency selectively affects the neural coding of outcomes but not of tasks.

Authors:  David Wisniewski; Birte Forstmann; Marcel Brass
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Visual working memory and action: Functional links and bi-directional influences.

Authors:  Freek van Ede
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2020-05-12

8.  The effect of performing versus preparing a task on the subsequent switch cost.

Authors:  Rachel Swainson; Laura Prosser; Kostadin Karavasilev; Aleksandra Romanczuk
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2019-10-17

Review 9.  On the Education About/of Radical Embodied Cognition.

Authors:  John van der Kamp; Rob Withagen; Dominic Orth
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-11-05

10.  The role of working memory for task-order coordination in dual-task situations.

Authors:  Sebastian Kübler; Tilo Strobach; Torsten Schubert
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-04-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.