Hickman RH, Garnica CI, Cepeda IML, Plancarte CP, Arroyo HR

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 418-437
PDF size: 231.18 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the possible effect of different structures of the Tower of London, on the conduct of planning in college students. We worked with three versions of the Tower, the traditional, and TOL5 TOL3 and evaluated in a session of 20 trials, four levels of difficulty of the task in terms of number of moves needed to reach the goal. The results showed significant differences between the traditional TOL and two modified versions with respect to measures of latency, number and total movements, which were based on the increase in the level of difficulty. The results indicated that for the case of modified towers could speak of a concurrent task planning, unlike the execution of the participants of the traditional tower which itself before planned movement’s instrumental performance, particularly at high levels difficulty. These data suggest that the planning behavior is linked to the complexity of the task that the subjects are exposed and that successful implementation depends not necessarily planning.

REFERENCES

1. Byrne, R.W. (1977). Planning meals: problem-solving on a real data-base. Cognition, 5, 287-332.

2. Cohen, G. (1989). Memory in the real world. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.

3. Gilhooly, K. J., Phillips, L.H., Wynn, V. y Logie and S. and Della Sala, R. H. (1999). Planning processes and age in the five-disc tower of london task. Thinking and Reasoning, 5 (4), 339–361.

4. Hayes-Roth, B. y Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, 275-310.

5. Hickman, H., Cepeda, L., Moreno, D., Plancarte, P., Arroyo, R., y Garnica, I. (2010). Evaluación de variantes de la Torre de Londres para el estudio del comportamiento complejo. Cartel presentado en el XVIII Congreso Mexicano del Psicología. Universidad Iberoamericana. México.

6. Kaller, C. P., Unterrainer, J. M., Rahm, B. y Halsband U. (2004). The impact of problem structure on planning: insights from the tower of London task. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 462–472.

7. Moreno, A. (1995). Autorregulación y solución de problemas: un punto de vista psicogenético. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 72, 51-70.

8. Moreno, D., Hernández, V., Plancarte, P., Hickman, H., Cepeda, L., y Arroyo, R. (2012). Dos estrategias para el estudio de la conducta humana: análisis de protocolos y la torre de Londres. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Iztacala, 15 (1), 1-21.

9. Newman, S. D. y Pittman, G. P. (2007). The Tower of London: A study of the effect of problem structure on planning. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29 (3), 333–342.

10. Norman, D.A. (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review, 88, 1- 15.

11. Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V. E., McPherson, S. y Gilhooly, K. J. (2001). Mental planning and the Tower of London. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54 (2), 579-597.

12. Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments in planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, B298, 199-209.

13. Ward, G. y Allport, A. (1997). Planning and problem-solving using the five-disc Tower of London task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50 (1), 49-78.

14. Unterrainer, J. M., Rahm, B., Leonhart, R., Ruff, C. C. y Halsband, U. (2003). The Tower of London: the impact of instructions, cueing, and learning on planning abilities. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 675–683.

15. Unterrainer, J. M., Rahm, B., Halsband, U. y Kaller, C.P. (2005). What is in a name: comparing the Tower of London with one of its variants. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 418–428.