Showing papers by "Tim Shallice published in 1986"
01 Jan 1986
TL;DR: This chapter proposes a theoretical framework structured around the notion of a set of active schemas, organized according to the particular action sequences of which they are a part, awaiting the appropriate set of conditions so that they can become selected to control action.
Abstract: Much effort has been made to understand the role of attention in perception; much less effort has been placed on the role attention plays in the control of action Our goal in this chapter is to account for the role of attention in action, both when performance is automatic and when it is under deliberate conscious control We propose a theoretical framework structured around the notion of a set of active schemas, organized according to the particular action sequences of which they are a part, awaiting the appropriate set of conditions so that they can become selected to control action The analysis is therefore centered around actions, primarily external actions, but the same principles apply to internal actions—actions that involve only the cognitive processing mechanisms One major emphasis in the study of attentional processes is the distinction between controlled and automatic processing of perceptual inputs (eg, Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977) Our work here can be seen as complementary to the distinction between controlled and automatic processes: we examine action rather than perception; we emphasize the situations in which deliberate, conscious control of activity is desired rather than those that are automatic
4,060 citations
TL;DR: The lexical decision performance of a letter-by-letter reader, ML, was analysed for words presented for too short an exposure duration for him to identify or name them as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The lexical decision performance of a letter-by-letter reader, ML, was analysed for words presented for too short an exposure duration for him to identify or name them. His level of performance was surprisingly good by comparison with that of previously reported patients. In addition he gave a very similar pattern of responses to inappropriately affixed words as to appropriately affixed ones. His performance on these tasks could not be attributed to neglect or to the use of letter sequential dependencies. In addition, with the same exposure duration, ML showed “semantic access” characteristics in word categorisation tasks. This evidence for lexical processing in the absence of explicit identification is discussed in relation to alternative accounts of letter-by-letter reading.
188 citations