Reviewing the impact of problem structure on planning: A software tool for analyzing tower tasks

Kaller, Christoph P.; Rahm, Benjamin; Köstering, Lena; Unterrainer, Josef M.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2010.07.029

Cited by 61 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not the case for "flat" target states, where one disk is on each peg, and where the order in which subgoals must be achieved so as to minimise total moves is ambiguous. The tower/flat distinction applies equally to the ToL as it does to the ToH (Waldau, 1999;Kaller et al, 2008;Kaller et al, 2011a), and as noted in the introduction, Kaller et al (2011b) found that problems with ambiguous subgoal ordering engage left lateral PFC relatively more than those without (while problems that require intermediate moves activated right lateral PFC more than those that did not). Ambiguous subgoal ordering again implies the need for a switching function: successful solution of such problems will require considering different orderings of the subgoals, and hence switching between subgoals when planning moves.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Problems E and F require avoiding the temptation, on the initial move, to place a ball in its goal position. (See Kaller et al, 2011a, for public domain software that analyses Tower problems on these and more dimensions.) The mapping of shades of grey to colours of the balls as presented to participants (red, green and blue) was randomised on each block so that participants did not become familiar with the problems.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Set-shifting as a component process of goal-directed problem-solving

Cooper

Marsh

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In two experiments, we compared secondary task interference on Tower of London performance resulting from three different secondary tasks. The secondary tasks were designed to tap three different executive functions, namely set-shifting, memory monitoring and updating, and response inhibition. Previous work using individual differences methodology suggests that, all other things being equal, the response inhibition or memory tasks should result in the greatest interference. However, this was not found to be the case. Rather, in both experiments the setshifting task resulted in significantly more interference on Tower of London performance than either of the other secondary tasks. Subsequent analyses suggest that the degree of interference could not be attributed to differences in secondary task difficulty. Results are interpreted in the light of related work which suggests that solving problems with non-transparent goal/subgoal structure requires flexible shifting between subgoals -a process that is held to be impaired by concurrent performance of a set-shifting task.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Set-shifting as a component process of goal-directed problem-solving

Cooper

Marsh

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tower of London (TOL) -The computerized version (Kaller et al, 2011) of the TOL task (Shallice, 1982) was used in the present study to assess planning. Participants were instructed to solve a set of TOL problems Nemati, Schmid, Soltanlou et al 445 (Kaller et al, 2011) which consisted of 28 trials of three-, four-, five-, and six-move problems (eight trials each except four trials for the three-move problem) presented in fixed order.…”

Section: Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants were instructed to solve a set of TOL problems Nemati, Schmid, Soltanlou et al 445 (Kaller et al, 2011) which consisted of 28 trials of three-, four-, five-, and six-move problems (eight trials each except four trials for the three-move problem) presented in fixed order. The test contained two boards (reference and test).…”

Section: Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, we aimed at examining the impact of WM and planning on solving complex multiplication tasks. In the current study, we used the Tower of London (TOL) task to operationalize planning.The TOL is a common instrument for measuring planning skills in cognitive and clinical studies (Kaller, Rahm, Köstering, & Unterrainer, 2011) and similar to WM, it is known to critically rely on the activity of the prefrontal cortex (for a review see Unterrainer & Owen, 2006). Furthermore, aside from cognitive domain-general factors, few studies have indicated a plausible contribution of behavioral domain-general factors to arithmetic performance (see also Cragg & Gilmore, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Planning and self-control, but not working memory, directly predict multiplication performance in adults

Nemati

Schmid

Soltanlou³

et al. 2017

J. Numer. Cogn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical evidence suggests that working memory (WM) is closely related to arithmetic performance. WM, which is the ability to monitor and update recent information, underlies various cognitive processes and behaviors including planning, self-regulation, and self-control. However, only a few studies have examined whether WM uniquely explains variance in arithmetic performance when other WM-related domain-general factors are taken into account. In this study, we examined whether WM explains unique variance in arithmetic performance when planning, self-regulation, and self-control are considered as well. We used the Tower of London task as a measure of planning, selfrated reports as a measure of self-regulation and self-control, and WM measures, to test which of these domain-general functions predicts complex multiplication performance. Results showed that planning predicted multiplication accuracy and self-control predicted response time, while WM and self-regulation did not predict complex multiplication performance. Although WM was not a direct predictor of multiplication performance, it possibly exerted its influence as part of planning ability. We suggest that complex multiplication is not predicted by WM per se, but rather by WM-related general cognitive and behavioral factors, namely self-control and the planning component of executive functions.Keywords: arithmetic performance, multiplication, executive functions, planning, working memory, self-regulation, self-control Journal of Numerical Cognition, 2017, Vol. 3(2), 441-467, doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.61 Received: 2016-06-06. Accepted: 2017-03-02. Published (VoR): 2017-12-22.Handling Editors: Silke Goebel, University of York, York, United Kingdom; André Knops, Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany *Corresponding author at: University of Tübingen, Schleichstr. 4, 72076 Tübingen, Germany. E-mail: parvin.nemati@uni-tuebingen.de This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.People use numerical skills in their everyday life in various situations such as shopping or paying bills at restaurants. About 20% of adults do not achieve basic levels of mathematic competence required for these life skills (Williams, 2003). This mathematical incompetence leads to lower income and less financial security in life (Butterworth, Varma, & Laurillard, 2011;Parsons & Bynner, 2005). Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine the factors that can lead to this incompetence. Two groups of factors that influence mathematical skills have been described in the literature. One group consists of domain-specific factors, such as the approximate number system (e.g., Libertus, Feigenson, & Halberda, 2011; for review see Dietrich, Huber, & Nuerk, 2015) or spatialnumerical associations (e.g., Siegler & Opfer, 2003; but see Cipor...

show abstract