1756-8765/asset/TOPS_left.gif?v=1&s=d566d0ec7a809774bd100974244dce3e582e54f6)
1756-8765/asset/TOPS_right.gif?v=1&s=9810b49e49ffd9b5a5b4807617cb10019d454ef6)
Defining an Ontology of Cognitive Control Requires Attention to Component Interactions
Article first published online: 17 MAR 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01141.x
Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.
Additional Information
How to Cite
Badre, D. (2011), Defining an Ontology of Cognitive Control Requires Attention to Component Interactions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3: 217–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01141.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 6 APR 2011
- Article first published online: 17 MAR 2011
- Received 18 June 2010; received in revised form 27 August 2010; accepted 23 September 2010
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- Cognitive control;
- Prefrontal cortex;
- Executive function;
- Working memory
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.