The Tower of London: the impact of instructions, cueing, and learning on planning abilities

被引:51
作者
Unterrainer, JM
Rahm, B
Leonhart, R
Ruff, CC
Halsband, U
机构
[1] Univ Freiburg, Inst Psychol, D-79085 Freiburg, Germany
[2] Univ Freiburg, Dept Rehabil Psychol, Inst Psychol, D-79085 Freiburg, Germany
[3] UCL, Inst Cognit Neurosci, London WC1N 3AR, England
来源
COGNITIVE BRAIN RESEARCH | 2003年 / 17卷 / 03期
关键词
Tower of London; planning; instruction; cueing; learning;
D O I
10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00191-5
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
The Tower of London (ToL) is a well-known test of planning ability, and commonly used for the purpose of neuropsychological assessment and cognitive research. Its widespread application has led to numerous versions differing in a number of respects. The present study addressed the question whether differences in instruction. cueing, and learning processes systematically influence ToL performance across five difficulty levels (three to seven moves). A total of 81 normal adults were examined in a mixed design with the between-subject factor instruction (online versus mental preplanning) and the within-subject factors cueing (cue versus non-cue test version) and learning processes (first block and second block). We also assessed general intelligence for further analyses of differences between instruction groups. In general, there was a significant main effect across the difficulty levels indicating that the rate of incorrect solutions increased with problem difficulty. The participants who were instructed to make full mental plans before beginning to execute movements (preplanning) solved significantly more problems than people who started immediately with task-related movements (online). As for the cueing conditions. participants with the minimum number of moves predetermined (cue) could solve more trials than people who were only instructed to solve the problems in as few moves as possible (non-cue). participants generally increased performance in the second part of the test session. However, an interaction of presentation order of the cueing condition with learning indicated that people who started the tasks with the non-cue version showed significantly better performance in the following cue condition, while participants who started with the cue condition stayed at the same performance level for both versions. These findings suggest that instruction, cueing conditions. and learning processes are important determinants of ToL performance, and they stress the necessity of standardized application in research and clinical practice. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:675 / 683
页数:9
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   Practice effects on visuomotor and problem-solving tests by children [J].
Ahonniska, J ;
Ahonen, T ;
Aro, T ;
Tolvanen, A ;
Lyytinen, H .
PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, 2001, 92 (02) :479-494
[2]  
ANDREASEN NC, 1992, ARCH GEN PSYCHIAT, V49, P943
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1988, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY MENT
[4]   Neural systems engaged by planning: A PET study of the Tower of London task [J].
Baker, SC ;
Rogers, RD ;
Owen, AM ;
Frith, CD ;
Dolan, RJ ;
Frackowiak, RSJ ;
Robbins, TW .
NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 1996, 34 (06) :515-526
[5]   The Tower of London spatial problem-solving task: Enhancing clinical and research implementation [J].
Berg, WK ;
Byrd, DL .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 24 (05) :586-604
[6]   Planning impairments in frontal lobe dementia and frontal lobe lesion patients [J].
Carlin, D ;
Bonerba, J ;
Phipps, M ;
Alexander, G ;
Shapiro, M ;
Grafman, J .
NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 2000, 38 (05) :655-665
[7]  
Cockburn J, 1995, J Int Neuropsychol Soc, V1, P537
[8]   Mapping the network for planning: a correlational PET activation study with the Tower of London task [J].
Dagher, A ;
Owen, AM ;
Boecker, H ;
Brooks, DJ .
BRAIN, 1999, 122 :1973-1987
[9]   The role of the striatum and hippocampus in planning - A PET activation study in Parkinson's disease [J].
Dagher, A ;
Owen, AM ;
Boecker, H ;
Brooks, DJ .
BRAIN, 2001, 124 :1020-1032
[10]  
Gilhooly K.J., 2002, Thinking and Reasoning, V8, P165, DOI [10.1080/13546780244000006, DOI 10.1080/13546780244000006]