Correction to Duncan et al. (2008). |
| |
Authors: | Duncan, John Parr, Alice Woolgar, Alexandra Thompson, Russell Bright, Peter Cox, Sally Bishop, Sonia Nimmo-Smith, Ian |
| |
Abstract: | Reports an error in "Goal neglect and Spearman's g: Competing parts of a complex task" by John Duncan, Alice Parr, Alexandra Woolgar, Russell Thompson, Peter Bright, Sally Cox, Sonia Bishop and Ian Nimmo-Smith (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2008[Feb], Vol 137[1], 131-148). The DOI for the supplemental materials was printed incorrectly. The correct DOI is as follows: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.1.131.supp (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2008-01081-009.) In goal neglect, a person ignores some task requirement though being able to describe it. Goal neglect is closely related to general intelligence or C. Spearman's (1904) g (J. Duncan, H. Emslie, P. Williams, R. Johnson, & C. Freer, 1996). The authors tested the role of task complexity in neglect and the hypothesis that different task components in some sense compete for attention. In contrast to many kinds of attentional limits, increasing the real-time demands of one task component does not promote neglect of another. Neither does neglect depend on preparation for different possible events in a block of trials. Instead, the key factor is complexity in the whole body of knowledge specified in task instructions. The authors suggest that as novel activity is constructed, relevant facts, rules, and requirements must be organized into a "task model." As this model increases in complexity, different task components compete for representation, and vulnerable components may be lost. Construction of effective task models is closely linked to g. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
| |
Keywords: | task complexity goal neglect intelligence working memory frontal lobe attention |
|
|