Cargando…

Working Memory and Attention – Response to Commentaries

This is a brief reply to the commentaries by Adam and deBettencourt (2019); Allen (2019); Kiyonaga (2019); Schneider (2019); and Van der Stigchel and Olivers (2019), focusing on four topics: (1) I defend the idea that attention need not be characterized as a limited resource. (2) I explain how I con...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Oberauer, Klaus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ubiquity Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6688546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517241
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.79
_version_ 1783442906088996864
author Oberauer, Klaus
author_facet Oberauer, Klaus
author_sort Oberauer, Klaus
collection PubMed
description This is a brief reply to the commentaries by Adam and deBettencourt (2019); Allen (2019); Kiyonaga (2019); Schneider (2019); and Van der Stigchel and Olivers (2019), focusing on four topics: (1) I defend the idea that attention need not be characterized as a limited resource. (2) I explain how I conceptualize the role of WM in cognitive control, and how recruitment of sensory processing networks contributes to control but not maintenance. (3) I discuss different ways in which information can be selectively prioritized during or after being encoded into WM, and the different consequences of these processes. (4) I argue that sustained attention to a task can be understood as the mind’s ability to prioritize that task over task-unrelated representations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6688546
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Ubiquity Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66885462019-09-12 Working Memory and Attention – Response to Commentaries Oberauer, Klaus J Cogn Commentaries This is a brief reply to the commentaries by Adam and deBettencourt (2019); Allen (2019); Kiyonaga (2019); Schneider (2019); and Van der Stigchel and Olivers (2019), focusing on four topics: (1) I defend the idea that attention need not be characterized as a limited resource. (2) I explain how I conceptualize the role of WM in cognitive control, and how recruitment of sensory processing networks contributes to control but not maintenance. (3) I discuss different ways in which information can be selectively prioritized during or after being encoded into WM, and the different consequences of these processes. (4) I argue that sustained attention to a task can be understood as the mind’s ability to prioritize that task over task-unrelated representations. Ubiquity Press 2019-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6688546/ /pubmed/31517241 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.79 Text en Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Commentaries
Oberauer, Klaus
Working Memory and Attention – Response to Commentaries
title Working Memory and Attention – Response to Commentaries
title_full Working Memory and Attention – Response to Commentaries
title_fullStr Working Memory and Attention – Response to Commentaries
title_full_unstemmed Working Memory and Attention – Response to Commentaries
title_short Working Memory and Attention – Response to Commentaries
title_sort working memory and attention – response to commentaries
topic Commentaries
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6688546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517241
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.79
work_keys_str_mv AT oberauerklaus workingmemoryandattentionresponsetocommentaries