Defining an ontology of cognitive control requires attention to component interactions
- PMID: 21666845
- PMCID: PMC3110702
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01141.x
Defining an ontology of cognitive control requires attention to component interactions
Abstract
Cognitive control is not only componential, but those components may interact in complicated ways in the service of cognitive control tasks. This complexity poses a challenge for developing an ontological description, because the mapping may not be direct between our task descriptions and true component differences reflected in indicators. To illustrate this point, I discuss two examples: (a) the relationship between adaptive gating and working memory and (b) the recent evidence for a control hierarchy. From these examples, I argue that an ontological program must simultaneously seek to identify component processes and their interactions within a broader processing architecture.
Comment on
-
Towards an ontology of cognitive control.Top Cogn Sci. 2010 Oct;2(4):678-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01100.x. Top Cogn Sci. 2010. PMID: 25164049
References
-
- Badre D. Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro-caudal organization of the frontal lobes. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12:193–200. - PubMed
-
- Badre D, D'Esposito M. Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for a hierarchical organization of the prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2007;19:2082–2099. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources