Erasing the Homunculus as an Ongoing Mission: A Reply to the Commentaries

James R. Schmidt; Baptist Liefooghe; Jan De Houwer

doi:10.5334/joc.117

Abstract

In our recent article (Schmidt, Liefooghe, & De Houwer, 2020, this volume), we presented an adaptation of the Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model for simulating instruction following and task-switching behaviour. In this paper, we respond to five commentaries on our article: Monsell & McLaren (2020), Koch & Lavric (2020), Meiran (2020), Longman (2020), and Pfeuffer (2020). The commentaries discuss potential future modelling goals, deeper reflections on cognitive control, and some potential challenges for our theoretical perspective and associated model. We focus primarily on the latter. In particular, we clarify that we (a) acknowledge the role of cognitive control in task switching, and (b) are arguing that certain task-switching effects do not serve as a good measure of said cognitive control. We also discuss some ambiguities in terminological uses (e.g., the meaning of “task-set reconfiguration”), along with some future experimental and modelling research directions.

References

Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. L. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and Performance XV (15th ed., pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). Episodic and semantic components of the compound-stimulus strategy in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition, 32, 965–978. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196874
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 769–783. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider, H. (2006). Implicit task sets in task switching? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1221–1233. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1221
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider, H. (2007). The role of task rules and stimulus-response mappings in the task switching paradigm. Psychological Research, 71, 383–392. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0041-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.229
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning. Psychological Research, 68, 138–154. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-003-0151-8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Forrest, C. L. D., Monsell, S., & McLaren, I. P. L. (2014). Is performance in task-cuing experiments mediated by task set selection or associative compound retrieval? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1002–1024. DOI: 10.1037/a0035981
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Frings, C. (2011). On the decay of distractor-response episodes. Experimental Psychology, 58, 125–131. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000077
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Frings, C., Hommel, B., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., … Philipp, A. (2020). Binding and Retrieval in Action Control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 375–387. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Giesen, C., Schmidt, J. R., & Rothermund, K. (2020). The law of recency: An episodic stimulus-response retrieval account of habit acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2927. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02927
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–337. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0770
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2015). Learning from history: The need for a synthetic approach to human cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1435. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01435
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2011). Stimulus-response bindings code both abstract and specific representations of stimuli: Evidence from a classification priming design that reverses multiple levels of response representation. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1457–1471. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0118-8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Koch, I., & Lavric, A. (2020). Has “erasing” made things clearer? Journal of Cognition. 3(1): 25, pp. 1–3. DOI: 10.5334/joc.111
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kramer, A. F., Cepeda, N. J., & Cepeda, M. L. (2001). Methylphenidate effects on task-switching performance in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1277–1284. DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00007
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(90)90002-L
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 575–599. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.575
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 832–840. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196709
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases “switch costs” in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1250–1259. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193269
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Longman, C. S. (2020). A small platoon of idiots have been allowed to flourish, but the homunculus has not been erased from memory. Journal of Cognition. 3(1): 23, pp. 1–3. DOI: 10.5334/joc.106
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Longman, C. S., Lavric, A., & Monsell, S. (2016). The coupling between spatial attention and other components of task-set: A task-switching investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 2248–2275. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1115112
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Longman, C. S., Lavric, A., & Monsell, S. (2017). Self-paced preparation for a task switch eliminates attentional inertia but not the performance switch cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 862–873. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000347
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Longman, C. S., Lavric, A., Munteanu, C., & Monsell, S. (2014). Attentional inertia and delayed orienting of spatial attention in task-switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1580–1602. DOI: 10.1037/a0036552
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meiran, N. (2020). Simple control. Journal of Cognition. 3(1): 26, pp. 1–4. DOI: 10.5334/joc.107
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1423
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.2000.0736
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): A theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-008-0136-8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meiran, N., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2017). Powerful instructions: Automaticity without practice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 509–514. DOI: 10.1177/0963721417711638
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2017a). Dissociation of binding and learning processes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 2590–2605. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-017-1393-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2017b). Overlearned Responses Hinder S-R Binding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1–5. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000341
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Monsell, S. (2015). Task-set control and task switching. In J. M. Fawcett, E. F. Risko, & A. Kingstone (Eds.), The handbook of attention (pp. 139–172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Monsell, S. (2017). Task set regulation. In T. Egner (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (pp. 29–49). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. DOI: 10.1002/9781118920497.ch2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Monsell, S., & Driver, J. (2000). Banishing the control homunculus. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Monsell, S., & McLaren, I. (2020). PEP does not dispense with but implements task-set reconfiguration. Can it handle phenomena more diagnostic of endogenous control? Journal of Cognition. 3(1): 27, pp. 1–5. DOI: 10.5334/joc.109
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mordkoff, J. T., & Halterman, R. (2008). Feature integration without visual attention: Evidence from the correlated flankers task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 385–389. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.2.385
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus-classification and stimulus-action associations: Effects of repetition learning and durability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1744–1757. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2014.984232
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pfeuffer, C. U. (2020). Item-specificity and intention in episodic memory. Journal of Cognition. 3(1): 24, pp. 1–4. DOI: 10.5334/joc.110
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). The power of words: On item-specific stimulus-response associations formed in the absence of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 328–347. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000317
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmidt, J. R., Giesen, C., & Rothermund, K. (2020). Contingency learning as binding? Testing an exemplar view of the colour-word contingency learning effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 739–761. DOI: 10.1177/1747021820906397
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmidt, J. R., & Liefooghe, B. (2016). Feature integration and task switching: Diminished switch costs after controlling for stimulus, response, and cue repetitions. Plos One, 11, e0151188. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151188
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmidt, J. R., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2020). An episodic model of task switching effects: Erasing the homunculus from memory. Journal of Cognition. 3(1): 22, pp. 1–38. DOI: 10.5334/joc.97
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 343–367. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.343
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verbruggen, F., McLaren, I. P. L., & Chambers, C. D. (2014). Banishing the control homunculi in studies of action control and behavior change. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 497–524. DOI: 10.1177/1745691614526414
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Erasing the Homunculus as an Ongoing Mission: A Reply to the Commentaries

Abstract

Paradigm

My account