The dual mechanisms of cognitive control and their relation to reasoning and the item-position effect
Braver's (2012) dual mechanisms of cognitive control differentiate between proactive control (PMC; i.e. early selection and maintenance of goal-relevant information) and reactive control (RMC; i.e. a late mobilization of attention when required). It has been suggested that higher cognitive capa...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/9b95b33f318f4a8da0248306d1b26920 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Braver's (2012) dual mechanisms of cognitive control differentiate between proactive control (PMC; i.e. early selection and maintenance of goal-relevant information) and reactive control (RMC; i.e. a late mobilization of attention when required). It has been suggested that higher cognitive capacities (as indicated by reasoning ability as a major characteristic of fluid intelligence) facilitate using the more resource-demanding PMC. We propose the following alternative explanation: engagement in PMC during the completion of reasoning tests leads to better test performance because gained knowledge (i.e. rules learned) during completion of early items is better maintained and transferred to later items. This learning of rules during the completion of a reasoning test results in an item-position effect (IPE) as an additional source of individual differences besides reasoning ability. We investigated this idea in a sample of 210 young adults who completed the AX-Continuous Performance Task (AX-CPT) and the Vienna Matrices Test (VMT). Using fixed-links modeling, we separated an IPE from reasoning ability in the VMT. Based on reaction time (RT) patterns across AX-CPT conditions, we identified three different groups by means of latent-profile analysis. RT patterns indicated engagement in PMC for Group A, mixed PMC and RMC for Group B, and RMC for Group C. With the consideration of the IPE, groups did not differ in their reasoning abilities. However, Group A (engaging in PMC) had a more pronounced IPE than Group C (engaging in RMC). Therefore, we conclude that PMC contributes to a stronger IPE, which in turn leads to higher scores in reasoning tests as measures of fluid intelligence. |
|---|