Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:46:49.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Difficulty matters: Unspecific attentional demands as a major determinant of performance highlighted by clinical studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2013

Mario Bonato ,
Marco Zorzi  and
Carlo Umiltà
Mario Bonato
Affiliation:
Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy. [email protected]@[email protected]://ccnl.psy.unipd.it/ Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, B9000 Ghent, Belgium
Marco Zorzi
Affiliation:
Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy. [email protected]@[email protected]://ccnl.psy.unipd.it/ IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, 30126 Lido-Venice, Italy
Carlo Umiltà
Affiliation:
Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy. [email protected]@[email protected]://ccnl.psy.unipd.it/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cognitive impairments shown by brain-damaged patients emphasize the role of task difficulty as a major determinant for performance. We discuss the proposal of Kurzban et al. in light of our findings on right-hemisphere–damaged patients, who show increasing awareness deficits for the contralesional hemispace when engaged with resource-consuming dual tasks. This phenomenon is readily explained by the assumption of unspecific depletable resources.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , December 2013 , pp. 680 - 681
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bargh, J. A. & Morsella, E. (2008) The unconscious mind. Perspectives in Psychological Science 3:73–79.Google Scholar
Bonato, M. (2012) Neglect and extinction depend greatly on task demands: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6:195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonato, M., Priftis, K., Marenzi, R., Umiltà, C. & Zorzi, M. (2010) Increased attentional demands impair contralesional space awareness following stroke. Neuropsychologia 48:3934–40.Google Scholar
Bonato, M., Priftis, K., Marenzi, R., Umiltà, C. & Zorzi, M. (2012a) Deficits of contralesional awareness: A case study on what paper-and-pencil tests neglect. Neuropsychology 26:20–36.Google Scholar
Bonato, M., Priftis, K., Umiltà, C. & Zorzi, M. (2013) Computer-based attention-demanding testing unveils severe neglect in apparently intact patients. Behavioural Neurology 26:179–81.Google Scholar
Bonato, M., Sella, F., Berteletti, I. & Umiltà, C. (2012b) Neuropsychology is nothing without control: A potential fallacy hidden in clinical studies. Cortex 48:353–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, S. & Lavie, N. (2009) Harnessing the wandering mind: The role of perceptual load. Cognition 111:345–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lavie, N. (1995) Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21:451–68.Google Scholar
Lavie, N. (2005) Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(2):75–82.Google Scholar
Navon, D. (1984) Resources – A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review 91(2):216–34.Google Scholar
Sergent, C. & Naccache, L. (2012) Imaging neural signatures of consciousness: “What,” “when,” “where,” and “how” does it work? Archives Italiennes de Biologie 150:91–106.Google Scholar
Sklar, A. Y., Levy, N., Goldstein, A., Mandel, R., Maril, A. & Hassin, R. R. (2012) Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109(48):19614–19.Google Scholar