Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G D Logan

Publications and source records attributed to G D Logan.

48 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1986

On the autonomy of mental processes: a case study of arithmetic.

We define a process as autonomous if it can begin without intention, and if it can run on to completion without intention. We develop empirical criteria for determining whether a process can begin without intention, for determining whether it begins in the same way without intention as it does with intention, and for determining whether it can run on to completion without intention once it begins. We apply these criteria to assess the autonomy of the processes underlying simple mental arithmetic--the addition and multiplication of single digits--and find evidence that simple arithmetic may be only partially autonomous: It can begin without intention, but does not begin in the same way without intention as with intention and does not run on to completion without intention. This conclusion suggests there may be a continuum of autonomy, ranging from completely autonomous to completely nonautonomous.

Association Learning↗
PubMed1984

On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method.

This article reports four experiments on the ability to inhibit responses in simple and choice reaction time (RT) tasks. Subjects responding to visually presented letters were occasionally presented with a stop signal (a tone) that told them not to respond on that trial. The major dependent variables were (a) the probability of inhibiting a response when the signal occurred, (b) mean and standard deviation (SD) of RT on no-signal trials, (c) mean RT on trials on which the signal occurred but subjects failed to inhibit, and (d) estimated RT to the stop signal. A model was proposed to estimated RT to the stop signal and to account for the relations among the variables. Its main assumption is that the RT process and the stopping process race, and response inhibition depends on which process finishes first. The model allows us to account for differences in response inhibition between tasks in terms of transformations of stop-signal delay that represent the relative finishing times of the RT process and the stopping process. The transformations specified by the model were successful in group data and in data from individual subjects, regardless of how delays were selected. The experiments also compared different methods of selecting stop-signal delays to equate the probability of inhibition in the two tasks.

Choice Behavior↗
PubMed1982

Constraints on strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task.

In three experiments, subjects reported the identity of a word (above or below) that appeared above or below a fixation point. On some trials, a cue presented 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, or 1,000 msec before the word indicated the relation between position and identity (i.e., whether the dimensions were compatible, e.g., above/above and below/below, or conflicted, e.g., above/below and below/above). On the other trials, the cue was withheld (Experiment 2) or it bore no information about the relation between dimensions (Experiment 1 and 3). In each experiment, the cue reduced reaction time below the level of no-cue or neutral-cue controls, indicating strategic use of the relation between dimensions. Experiments 1 and 2 manipulated the number of potential cues that could occur in a block. A stronger cuing effect was found when one cue could occur (Experiment 2) than when two cues could occur (Experiment 1). Experiment 3 manipulated practice; it revealed that with practice the cuing effect reached asymptote at shorter delays. The asymptote itself did not change. Experiment 4 showed that cue-delay effects were independent of warning interval (warning interval and cue delay confounded in Experiment 1, 2, and 3). The experiments demonstrate construction and utilization of strategies; they show that construction is sensitive to constraints imposed by the subject's goals and abilities and by the structure of the task environment.

Attention↗