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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 28 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Journal of Cognition |
Volume | 3 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 10 Sept 2020 |
Keywords
- computational modelling
- neural networks
- episodic memory
- binding
- switch costs
- feature integration
- task-rule congruency
- instruction implementation
- goals