Abstract
Schmidt et al.’s (2020) PEP model accurately reflects the complexity of task switching based on bottom-up assumptions and episodic memory, re-evaluating the contribution of commonly presumed top-down processes. Extending it to long-term bindings and their item-specific effects could eludicate puzzling findings regarding the independence of long-term bindings between stimuli, responses, and task-specific categorizations as well as the relation between short-term and long-term bindings. Moreover, ideomotor theories of action control provide a bottom-up basis of incorporating volition and intentional action into the PEP model which is currently restricted to stimulus-based action.
Highlights
Discussions of top-down and bottom-up contributions to cognitive processes are omnipresent in psychological research (e.g., Abrahamse et al, 2016; Awh et al, 2012; Demanet et al, 2010)
I will speculate about whether Schmidt et al.’s PEP model could account for item-specific binding1 effects and how intentional actions could be incorporated into it
The PEP model stores individual episodic bindings separately, but weights them with a recency factor. This reconciles two theoretical accounts of how long-term stimulus-response bindings are encoded and retrieved: One, theories assuming that singular instances are stored and either instance retrieval or response computation wins the race (e.g., Logan, 1988, 1990), and two, theories proposing that bindings vary in strength depending on the number of pairings between stimulus and response (e.g., Horner & Henson, 2009, 2011; Moutsopoulou et al, 2015; Pfeuffer et al, 2018b)
Summary
Discussions of top-down and bottom-up contributions to cognitive processes are omnipresent in psychological research (e.g., Abrahamse et al, 2016; Awh et al, 2012; Demanet et al, 2010). Schmidt et al.’s PEP model implements instructions (see Ramamoorthy & Verguts, 2012, for an earlier model) and accounts for multi-goal situations by encoding bindings in episodic memory and retrieving them. I will speculate about whether Schmidt et al.’s PEP model could account for item-specific binding1 effects and how intentional actions could be incorporated into it.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
