Defining an Ontology of Cognitive Control Requires Attention to Component Interactions

Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):217-221 (2011)

Abstract

Cognitive control is not only componential, but those components may interact in complicated ways in the service of cognitive control tasks. This complexity poses a challenge for developing an ontological description, because the mapping may not be direct between our task descriptions and true component differences reflected in indicators. To illustrate this point, I discuss two examples: (a) the relationship between adaptive gating and working memory and (b) the recent evidence for a control hierarchy. From these examples, I argue that an ontological program must simultaneously seek to identify component processes and their interactions within a broader processing architecture

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,743

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-03-18

Downloads
98 (#122,436)

6 months
1 (#387,390)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Similar books and articles

Cognitive Control: Componential or Emergent?Richard P. Cooper - 2010 - Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4):598-613.
Consciousness and Control: Not Identical Twins.Bernhard Hommel - 2007 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (1):155-176.
Cognitive Control: Componential and Yet Emergent.Ion Juvina - 2011 - Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):242-246.
Toward a Unified View of Cognitive Control.Dario D. Salvucci & Niels A. Taatgen - 2011 - Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):227-230.
The Evolution of Cognitive Control.Dietrich Stout - 2010 - Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4):614-630.