Cognitive Science seminar I � consciousness

The fractionation of intention

8 May 00

Glyn Humphreys

 

series of seminars marking the end of Martin Davies� tenure (Wilde Reader in Mental Philosophy)

 

consciousness = highest profile topic in inter-disciplinary research in cognitive science

it can mean more than one thing

 

mystery - the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers)

phenomenal consciousness

access consciousness � some information is available to be used by us as agents in the rational control of speech + planning for action

 

action <�/span> perception loop

how you act is influenced by how you see the world as being

how you intend to act upon the world

 

the way you intend to act upon the world splits up in neuropsychological cases

 

Glyn Humphreys + M Jane Riddoch � �To see and not to see�

Martin Davies + Glyn Humphreys � �Consciousness�

---

 

conisderable evidence from experimental psychology and neuropsychology for unconscious processing of stimuli (those which we can�t express a specific response)

e.g. blindsight

priming + preference judgements on stimuli in the neglected field

forced choice judgements in alexia (unable to explicity read the stimulus)

shows the effects of stimuli that they report not being aware

even though they may feel that they�re guessing, they�re told not to mind that � intentional behaviour corresponds to the location of the stimulus

intentionally based, even though affected by things they�re not explicitly aware of

other instances where beahviour is generated without intention

ERPs in neglect

GSR in psopagnosia (galvanic skin responses to people they know)

 

are unintentional actions contingent on low-level mechanisms, with simple input-output relations?

can unintentional action be found on behaviuors that are normally controlled by intention:

reaching and grasping an object

whole sequence of action

 

Reason (1984) � diary studies of �slips of everyday action�:

e.g. taking a new route a long a familiar path (don�t turn left at the usual junction)

where the action you�re carrying out conflicts with the higher-level goal you�re setting up

 

slips of action when concentrating on something else

S-R contention scheduling system modulated by supervisory attentional system (priming/inhibiting some responses, e.g. the familiar route)

 

intentional behaviour is determined by the Supervisory Attentional System in a unitary fashion

but here: intentional control of behaviour can be fractionated in a number of ways:

neuropsychological evidence based on slips of action. fractionation of:

control object selection

control of action selection

external and internal control mechanisms

 

utilisation behaviour (serious disorder, damage to frontal lobes)

grasp reaction to stimulus, even though told to do something else and not touch the stimulus (put the glasses on instead of putting on the table, with more and more glasses)

utilisation behaviour = extreme example of lack of task-based intentional control of action

can aspects of utilisation behaviour be differentiated?

Riddoch et al. (1998)

cup aligned with left hand, pick up with that hand

or cup aligned with right hand, pick up with other hand

ES: 59 year-old nursery nurse, with cortico-basal degeneration

gradual onset of motor diffiuclites, problems including lack of control over her hands

including striking her aunt at dinner

she was aware of these gross errors, and tried to sit on her hands to control them

 

compatible conditions (same hand): 20/20 or 19/20

incompatible conditions (opposite hand): 3/20

 

even though the patient understood the task rule, could discriminate left + right (generates the overlearnt response to the stimulus, not the one she was supposed to)

 

cup turned upside down (less familiar to the patient)

was able to use her left hand to pick up the mug on the left, even though the handle was on the wrong side) 18/20

with cup-like object 16/20

 

ES right hand grasp responses:

affected by familiarity of object

affected by familiarity of object orientation

 

very difficult for her to over-ride competing stimulus response

can help by altering the stimulus (but the instructions remained the same each time)

if given both a black (distractor) and a white cup, never pick up the black mug

task: pick up the white object by the handle

minimal errors due to reaching to distractor

but many errors with reaching with the wrong hand

 

intention to select the object is relatively intact

but poor intentional selection of the correct action

 

i.e. stimulus selection is intact, but response selection is impaired

what kinds of representation are used as templates for object selection?

templates specifying perceptual attributes (Chelazzi et al 1993)

templates specifying affordance

bi-lateral damage: each hand was uncontrollable in different ways

 

MP 53 year old (aneurysm of right middle cerbral artery � right fronto-temporal lobe damage)

find the hammer (amidst objects on a table)

find the object you would use like this

easier, faster to select by specified action than by specifying the perceptual attributes of stimuli

separtion between the ability to select the stimulus and the ability to select the response

some complexities

timing factors in action

FK 30 years old = patient with symptoms of utilisation behaviour

former engineering student, suffered CO poisoning

bilateral damage to middle/superior temporal lobes and to medial frontal regions (archetypal frontal: very impulsive)

right handed � difficulty in controlling it

task: reach for the target with the hand matching its handle (distractor object present)

often picked up the distractor, not the target, with an incompatible hand (the action produced when distractor errors occur are very difficult to induce intentionally)

aiming for the distractor (right-orientated) but picks up the left-orientated target which is along the reach trajectory

 

internal and external control of selection

explored the Simon and the reverse-Simon effects

press button if object is on the left, or says �LEFT� etc.

reverse Simon - responding to the location of the stimulus, ignoring the meaning (or vice versa)

very slow if incompatible stimulus (e.g. the word �Right� on the left)

much faster if distractor present (larger perceptual load, perhaps enhancing the patient�s attention to the perceptual properties, which is what the patient has to respond to)

facilitates the reverse Simon-task (respond to location)

disrupts the Simon-task (respond to meaning and ignore location)

 

enhanced processing of perceptual attributes under conditions of perceptual load

automatic attraction of resources to perceptual processing?

 

functionally separable processes for the intentional control stimulus selection and the intentional control of response selection

intentional control of stimulus selection uses top-down templates for perceptual and action-response

 

how easy would it be to induce similar behaviour in normal subjects?

should be able to pick up at a smaller level in normal subjects, e.g. if give them a deadline, they generate errors, usually based on the visual rather than the semantic

 

 

 

Questions

ERPs

affordance

so is this evidence of overlearned responses, or a second agency (e.g. striking the aunt at dinner)?

Simon/reverse Simon effects (overlearnt S-R)