Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
Contrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine T. shallice, Institute of CognitiveNeuroscience, Alexandra House, 17 Queen Square,London WC13AR. UK.((Association Lecture of Attention & Performance XXLProcesses of Change in Brain andCognitive Development (ed M. Johnson & Y. Munakata), OUP, 2006.))1AbstractThe Supervisory System model in which the Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routinere are two cognitive levels in the control action is assessed. Il argued that there is a modulator}' relation between the levels. Il is further arguedContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
that standard connectionist variables such as age of acquisition, familiarity and frequency are particularly useful for characterising behaviour prodContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routines used to theoretically motivate a fractionation of Supervisory System processing as created by a set of functionally selective and anatomically partially separable subsystems. It is argued that the systems for the Supervisor}- System’s top-down selection of schemas in contention scheduling has a di Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routinefferent lateralisation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex from the systems concerned with non-evident error detection and checking. The former are heldContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
to be the more left lateralised by comparison with the latter.21. introduction1 he idea that there is a hierarchical organisation of die processes thContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routinen the more neurobiologic al versions it is commonplace to view the prefrontal cortex as die summit of die hierarchy (e.g.Luria,1966; Fiister, 1989; Dehaene& Changeux, 1997; Miller 8c Cohen, 2001.)A second very common idea in experimental psychology is that there are two domains of the control of act Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routineion - automatic and non-automatic (controlled) (e.g. Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977) - and there are related models in developmental psychology (eg. KarmiContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
loff-Smilh, 1986). The model 0Í Norman & myself (1980, 1986) (see also shallicc, 1982) essentially combines these two ideas in proposing two domains oContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine and with the Supervisory System loc alised in prefrontal cortexTn these respects the Norman-Shallice model may be thought of as merely one variant of the combination of two now standard, although not universally accepted, perspectives in cognitive neuroscience. Tt has, though, an additional rather Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routinedifferent c onc eptual3https://khothuvien.cori!dimension. It was developed not only from a conflation of the experimental psychology and the neurobiolContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
ogy of levels of action control; it also represented in two respects an interface between two different modelling traditions - the connectionist, at tContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routinechemas control the processing and effector systems they require, contention scheduling, the system the Supervisory System modulates, is viewed as operating in an interactive activation fashion with units corresponding to overlearned single motor or cognitive skills - action and thought schemas. In r Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routineoutine mode schemas receive activating input from both higher-level (source) schemas and from object-trigger systems. In nonroutine mode additional acContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
tivation to schemas is provided by the Supervisory System. However, in addition it is also useful to conceive of the overall system within a more symbContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routineion and in particular how the “arguments” of schemas are set on selection -where, with what and on what the thought or action skill operates - which depend upon the simultaneous state of object representation systems. Moreover, the initial verbal account has been realised more recently computational Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routinely in interactive activation simulations of Cooper & shallice (2000) based on the eveiyday task of coffee preparation.4The intellectual origins of theContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
Supervisory System concept were different In earlier discussions of the automatic/controlled distinction (e.g. Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977) what proceContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routinesystem. Conceptually that different systems could be involved in routine and non-routine operations came from classical artificial intelligence. There the idea was quite standard that in addition to the processes used for the effecting of routine selection of routine operations, there are special pr Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routineocesses that come into play in situations where routine responding does not lead to the attaining of goals (e.g. Sussman, 1975; Newell, 1990). The maiContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
n thrust of the model developed by Norman and myself (1980.1986) was to argue for a prefrontally located Supervisory System, coming into play in non-rContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routineons in which the two types of system come into play was derived from symbolic Al.One may view the contrast in the computational principles on which the two systems operate from a related but not identical perspective. Pemer (2003) has argued that the lower-level system representations involved in co Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routinentention scheduling are implicit, as they are procedural representations. By contrast he argues that the higher (Supervisory) level “is defined by theContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
necessity to entertain predication and fact-explicit representation and to exercise content control over the lower level” (p225). He illustrates thisContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routineication-implicit’ way, as no card is actually5being presented. He continues "That also means that not only predication to instances but also that they are not real but only hypothetically considered instances needs to be made explicit... The same explicitness is, of course, also required for plannin Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routineg, reasoning and entertaining hypotheses before one can come to a conclusion which action sequence is best to employ.” (p225)It is possible to consideContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
r the computations carried out by the cognitive subsystems on two dimensions. One concerns the number of input variables that need to be taken into acContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine descent principles are likely to be optimal ie systems operating on broadly connectionist principles, of which interactive activation models are a simple version. The second dimension is the degree to which the values of intermediate products, of input variables themselves, and indeed which are the Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine critical input variables may be subject to revision. As this characteristic increases so the value of having explicit how and why intermediate producContrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routine
ts are arrived at becomes increasingly valuable. One basic theme of the paper is that high values on the first dimension are more critical in the compContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to: Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routineeveloped by Stuss et al (1995) and Shallice & Burgess (1996) to confront a major conceptual inadequacy in the original model. How the Supervisory System enabled the organism to confront non-routine situations was6 Contrasting domains in the control of action the routine and the non-routineContrasting domains in the control of action: theroutine and the non-routineTim ShalliceUniversity College London and SISSA TriesteCorrespondence to:Gọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook