After incidentally learning about a hidden regularity, participants can either continue to solve ... more After incidentally learning about a hidden regularity, participants can either continue to solve the task as instructed or, alternatively, apply a shortcut. Past research suggests that the amount of conflict implied by adopting a shortcut seems to bias the decision for vs. against continuing instruction-coherent task processing. We explored whether this decision might transfer from one incidental learning task to the next. Theories that conceptualize strategy change in incidental learning as a learning-plus-decision phenomenon suggest that high demands to adhere to instruction-coherent task processing in Task 1 will impede shortcut usage in Task 2, whereas low control demands will foster it. We sequentially applied two established incidental learning tasks differing in stimuli, responses and hidden regularity (the alphabet verification task followed by the serial reaction task, SRT). While some participants experienced a complete redundancy in the task material of the alphabet verif...
In order to test whether or not instructions specifying the stimulus-response (S-R) mappings for ... more In order to test whether or not instructions specifying the stimulus-response (S-R) mappings for a new task suffice to create bindings between specified stimulus and response features, we developed a dual task paradigm of the ABBA type in which participants saw new S-R instructions for the A-task in the beginning of each trial. Immediately after the A-task instructions, participants had to perform a logically independent B-task. The imperative stimulus for the A-task was presented after the B-task had been executed. The present data show that the instructed S-R mappings influence performance on the embedded B-task, even when they (1) have never been practiced, and (2) are irrelevant with respect to the B-task. These results imply that instructions can induce bindings between S- and R-features without prior execution of the task at hand.
In the present study we examine the mechanism underlying the human ability to implement newly ins... more In the present study we examine the mechanism underlying the human ability to implement newly instructed stimulus-response mappings for their future application. We introduce a novel procedure in which we can investigate the processes underlying such implementation while controlling for more general working-memory demands. The results indicate that a region within the dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in the vicinity of the inferior frontal sulcus (IFS) is specifically recruited when new instructions are implemented compared to when new instructions are memorised. In addition, we observed that this area is more strongly activated when task performance is effective. Together, these findings suggest that the DLPFC, and more specific the IFS, plays an important role during the formation of procedural representations in working memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, Jun 27, 2011
The goal of the presented experiments was to investigate the dynamic interplay of task shielding ... more The goal of the presented experiments was to investigate the dynamic interplay of task shielding and its relaxation during task switching. Task shielding refers to the finding that single task sets in terms of 2-choice categorization rules help shielding against distraction from irrelevant stimulus attributes. During task switching, this shielding should temporarily be relaxed to prevent the perseveration of the previous task, on the downside making the system more vulnerable toward the intrusion of irrelevant information. Participants had to switch between a digit and a letter categorization task. An irrelevant stimulus feature (Experiment 1: color, Experiment 2: font) varied randomly, orthogonal to the task. The presence or absence of an interaction of the irrelevant feature (switch vs. repetition) and the response (switch vs. repetition) was taken as evidence for the absence or presence of task shielding, respectively. Replicating previous results, irrelevant feature and response did not interact on task repetitions, indicating successful shielding. On task switches, however, the irrelevant feature interacted with the response, supporting the assumption that task shielding is temporarily relaxed during task switching.
After incidentally learning about a hidden regularity, participants can either continue to solve ... more After incidentally learning about a hidden regularity, participants can either continue to solve the task as instructed or, alternatively, apply a shortcut. Past research suggests that the amount of conflict implied by adopting a shortcut seems to bias the decision for vs. against continuing instruction-coherent task processing. We explored whether this decision might transfer from one incidental learning task to the next. Theories that conceptualize strategy change in incidental learning as a learning-plus-decision phenomenon suggest that high demands to adhere to instruction-coherent task processing in Task 1 will impede shortcut usage in Task 2, whereas low control demands will foster it. We sequentially applied two established incidental learning tasks differing in stimuli, responses and hidden regularity (the alphabet verification task followed by the serial reaction task, SRT). While some participants experienced a complete redundancy in the task material of the alphabet verif...
In order to test whether or not instructions specifying the stimulus-response (S-R) mappings for ... more In order to test whether or not instructions specifying the stimulus-response (S-R) mappings for a new task suffice to create bindings between specified stimulus and response features, we developed a dual task paradigm of the ABBA type in which participants saw new S-R instructions for the A-task in the beginning of each trial. Immediately after the A-task instructions, participants had to perform a logically independent B-task. The imperative stimulus for the A-task was presented after the B-task had been executed. The present data show that the instructed S-R mappings influence performance on the embedded B-task, even when they (1) have never been practiced, and (2) are irrelevant with respect to the B-task. These results imply that instructions can induce bindings between S- and R-features without prior execution of the task at hand.
In the present study we examine the mechanism underlying the human ability to implement newly ins... more In the present study we examine the mechanism underlying the human ability to implement newly instructed stimulus-response mappings for their future application. We introduce a novel procedure in which we can investigate the processes underlying such implementation while controlling for more general working-memory demands. The results indicate that a region within the dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in the vicinity of the inferior frontal sulcus (IFS) is specifically recruited when new instructions are implemented compared to when new instructions are memorised. In addition, we observed that this area is more strongly activated when task performance is effective. Together, these findings suggest that the DLPFC, and more specific the IFS, plays an important role during the formation of procedural representations in working memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, Jun 27, 2011
The goal of the presented experiments was to investigate the dynamic interplay of task shielding ... more The goal of the presented experiments was to investigate the dynamic interplay of task shielding and its relaxation during task switching. Task shielding refers to the finding that single task sets in terms of 2-choice categorization rules help shielding against distraction from irrelevant stimulus attributes. During task switching, this shielding should temporarily be relaxed to prevent the perseveration of the previous task, on the downside making the system more vulnerable toward the intrusion of irrelevant information. Participants had to switch between a digit and a letter categorization task. An irrelevant stimulus feature (Experiment 1: color, Experiment 2: font) varied randomly, orthogonal to the task. The presence or absence of an interaction of the irrelevant feature (switch vs. repetition) and the response (switch vs. repetition) was taken as evidence for the absence or presence of task shielding, respectively. Replicating previous results, irrelevant feature and response did not interact on task repetitions, indicating successful shielding. On task switches, however, the irrelevant feature interacted with the response, supporting the assumption that task shielding is temporarily relaxed during task switching.
At least two theoretical positions strongly suggest that intelligence and problem solving are rel... more At least two theoretical positions strongly suggest that intelligence and problem solving are related. First, the ability to solve problems features prominent in almost every definition of human “intelligence;” thus, problem-solving capacity is viewed as one component of intelligence. Second, intelligence is often assumed to be a predictor of problem-solving ability. Our main goal in this chapter is to review to what extent the ability to solve complex, rather than simple laboratory, problems is indeed tied, empirically, to intelligence, and, which causal direction holds between the two concepts. The chapter is divided into three main sections. In the first section, we provide a definition of “complex problem solving.” In the second and third sections, we review much of the existing empirical work that relates complex problem-solving competence to intelligence. We distinguish two forms of complex problem solving. In the second section, we focus on explicit problem solving, that is, on problem solving that is controlled by a problem solver’s intentions. In the third section our focus is on implicit, that is, on automatic or non-conscious complex problem solving. Our main conclusions are that, first, there exists little, if any, empirical evidence that supports a relation between explicit complex problem-solving and global intelligence. Second, there is also no empirical evidence indicating that global intelligence and implicit complex problem solving might be related. Third, however, there exists a considerable amount of empirical data suggesting that specific components of intelligence, such as processing capacity, might be related to specific components of explicit complex problem solving. Together, the available evidence suggests that the global concepts of intelligence and problem solving are not related, but that specific subcomponents of intelligence and explicit problem solving might share variance. The existing empirical evidence does not speak, however, to the issue of whether subcomponents of intelligence predict subcomponents of problem solving or whether the opposite causal relation holds.
Uploads
Papers by Dorit Wenke