Impulsivity and speed-accuracy tradeoffs in information processing.

Dickman, Scott J.; Meyer, David E.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.274

Cited by 206 publications

(155 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

136

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our tasks were not of this type in that the tasks did not encourage responding faster than might be desired. Although errors were unforced, it is possible that individuals differed in the extent to which they favored speedy responding over accurate responding (e.g., Dickman & Meyer, 1988). Such speed-accuracy tradeoffs were not evident in our studies.…”

Section: Routine Cognitive Errorscontrasting

confidence: 50%

Routine cognitive errors: A trait-like predictor of individual differences in anxiety and distress

Fetterman

Robinson

2011

Cognition & Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Routine Cognitive Errorscontrasting

confidence: 50%

Routine cognitive errors: A trait-like predictor of individual differences in anxiety and distress

Fetterman

Robinson

2011

Cognition & Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Trait impulsivity also provides a broad measure of the degree to which people can successfully exercise control over behavior (37). We therefore measured visual working memory capacity using a change-detection task (35) and trait impulsivity using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) (38), and entered them as predictors of value-driven attentional capture in a simultaneous regression model.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value-driven attentional capture

Anderson

Laurent

Yantis

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

987

137

1,350

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention selects which aspects of sensory input are brought to awareness. To promote survival and well-being, attention prioritizes stimuli both voluntarily, according to context-specific goals (e.g., searching for car keys), and involuntarily, through attentional capture driven by physical salience (e.g., looking toward a sudden noise). Valuable stimuli strongly modulate voluntary attention allocation, but there is little evidence that high-value but contextually irrelevant stimuli capture attention as a consequence of reward learning. Here we show that visual search for a salient target is slowed by the presence of an inconspicuous, taskirrelevant item that was previously associated with monetary reward during a brief training session. Thus, arbitrary and otherwise neutral stimuli imbued with value via associative learning capture attention powerfully and persistently during extinction, independently of goals and salience. Vulnerability to such valuedriven attentional capture covaries across individuals with working memory capacity and trait impulsivity. This unique form of attentional capture may provide a useful model for investigating failures of cognitive control in clinical syndromes in which value assigned to stimuli conflicts with behavioral goals (e.g., addiction, obesity).E ffective deployment of attention is critical to the successful performance of any cognitive task. Attention determines what aspects of the sensory input are selected for cognitive processing, memory storage, and awareness. Two modes of attentional control are widely believed to determine perceptual priority: a voluntary, goal-directed mode, in which attention is guided by contextually appropriate goals and intentions, and an involuntary, stimulus-driven mode, in which attention is captured by physically salient stimuli (1-4) or by task-irrelevant stimuli that share identifying features with a searched-for target (5, 6). Each of these modes of control present concomitant benefits and costs: voluntary control of attention is goal-specific but potentially slower to implement; involuntary attentional capture can rapidly orient the organism to unexpected changes that could signal danger or opportunity, but has the potential to cause distraction from intended acts of perception.Goal-directed and stimulus-driven modes of attentional control have long been a focus of intense investigation, and much has been learned about the operating principles of each mode of control and their interaction (1, 4). However, there is growing evidence that these are not the only influences on attentional deployment. To promote survival and well-being, the brain is optimized to learn about perceptual stimuli that signal the potential for procuring reward (7,8). Voluntary attention to stimuli that predict reward is an effective mechanism for efficiently selecting valuable stimuli (9). Many studies have shown that reward facilitates voluntary attention to task-relevant stimuli, and that reward-based strategies and priorities strongly influence attentional perf...

show abstract

“…It has been previously demonstrated that ADHD patients (and impulsive adults) might trade accuracy for speed (Barkley 1990;Dickman and Meyer 1988;Sergeant and Scholten 1985;Sonuga-Barke et al 1996). Strictly speaking, such results do not indicate a process deficit in ADHD patients, but may reflect difficulties in the maintenance of an effective response set, aversion to delay, deficits in response inhibition, or differences in speed accuracy trade-off (Sonuga-Barke 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Are Motor Inhibition and Cognitive Flexibility Dead Ends in ADHD?

Rommelse

Altink

Sonneville

et al. 2007

J Abnorm Child Psychol

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive dysfunction has been postulated as the core deficit in ADHD, although many deficits in lower order cognitive processes have also been identified. By obtaining an appropriate baseline of lower order cognitive functioning light may be shed on as to whether executive deficits result from problems in lower order and/or higher order cognitive processes. We examined motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility in relation to a baseline measure in 816 children from ADHD and control families. Multiple children in a family were tested in order to examine the familiality of the measures. No evidence was found for deficits in motor inhibition or cognitive flexibility in children with ADHD or their nonaffected siblings: Compared to their baseline speed and accuracy of responding, children with ADHD and their (non)affected siblings were not disproportionally slower or inaccurate when demands for motor inhibition or cognitive flexibility were added to the task. However, children with ADHD and their (non)affected siblings were overall less accurate than controls, which could not be attributed to differences in response speed. This suggests that inaccuracy of responding is characteristic of children having (a familial risk for) ADHD. Motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility as operationalized with mean reaction time were found to be familial. It is concluded that poorer performance on executive tasks in children with ADHD and their (non)affected siblings may result from deficiencies in lower order cognitive processes and not (only) from higher order cognitive processes/executive functions.Keywords Inhibition . Set shifting . Endophenotype . Affected and nonaffected siblings . Familiality Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (American Psychiatric Association [APA] 1994) is associated with impairments in the fronto-striatal-basal ganglia neurocircuitry (Casey et al. 1997;Dickstein et al. 2005;Durston et al. 2003;Giedd et al. 2001). These impairments are hypothesized to be (causally) related to deficits in higher order cognitive processes/executive functions (Barkley 1997;Casey et al. 1997;Fuster 2002;Lovejoy et al. 1999;Mehta et al. 2004;Rubia et al. 1999). Executive deficits in working memory, (motor) inhibition, cognitive flexibility and planning are frequently found in children, adolescents and adults with ADHD (Barkley 1997;Boonstra et al. 2005b;Pennington and Ozonoff 1996;Sergeant et al. 2003;Sergeant et al. 2002;Willcutt et al. 2005). As the term 'higher order cognitive processes' suggests, there are also lower order cognitive processes on which higher order cognitive processes build (Halperin and Schulz 2006;Sergeant 2000;Sergeant et al. 2003;Shallice et al. 1996). Lower order cognitive processes, such as encoding, search, decision and response organization are less complex than higher order cognitive processes (Domin 1999;Parisi 1997;Sergeant 2000) and form necessary components for higher order cognitive operations (Baddeley and Della Sala J Abnorm Child Psychol (2007) 35:957-967

show abstract

Impulsivity and speed-accuracy tradeoffs in information processing.

Cited by 206 publications

References 33 publications

Routine cognitive errors: A trait-like predictor of individual differences in anxiety and distress

Routine cognitive errors: A trait-like predictor of individual differences in anxiety and distress

Value-driven attentional capture

Are Motor Inhibition and Cognitive Flexibility Dead Ends in ADHD?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About