Cited by 286Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural MechanismsMotor Control and Adaptation

A neurobiological theory of automaticity in perceptual categorization

Ashby, F. Gregory, Ennis, John M., Spiering, Brian J.·2007·Psychological Review

Abstract

A biologically detailed computational model is described of how categorization judgments become automatic in tasks that depend on procedural learning. The model assumes 2 neural pathways from sensory association cortex to the premotor area that mediates response selection. A longer and slower path projects to the premotor area via the striatum, globus pallidus, and thalamus. A faster, purely cortical path projects directly to the premotor area. The model assumes that the subcortical path has greater neural plasticity because of a dopamine-mediated learning signal from the substantia nigra. In contrast, the cortical-cortical path learns more slowly via (dopamine independent) Hebbian learning. Because of its greater plasticity, early performance is dominated by the subcortical path, but the development of automaticity is characterized by a transfer of control to the faster cortical-cortical projection. The model, called SPEED (Subcortical Pathways Enable Expertise Development), includes differential equations that describe activation in the relevant brain areas and difference equations that describe the 2- and 3-factor learning. A variety of simulations are described, showing that the model accounts for some classic single-cell recording and behavioral results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.114.3.632

Cites

173 of 173 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Ashby et al. model accounts for results showing that automatic behaviors are striatum- and dopamine-independent, but it does not account for results showing activation of sensorimotor striatum after automaticity has developed.

    “are striatum- and dopamine-independent, but it does not account for the results reviewed earlier showing activation of sensorimotor striatum after automaticity has developed.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ashby, F. G., Ennis, J. M., & Spiering, B. J.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2007
Volume
114
Issue
3
Pages
632-656
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2140983215
Cited by
286
References
173
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 20
FWCI
9.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Public Health Service (MH3760-2)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
automaticity, perceptual categorization, procedural learning, speed model, subcortical pathways, premotor cortex, striatum, globus pallidus, thalamus, dopamine, substantia nigra, Hebbian learning, neuroplasticity, response selection, expertise development, computational neuroscience
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Automatism, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Concept Formation, Corpus Striatum, Dominance, Cerebral, Dopamine, Globus Pallidus, Habits, Humans, Neural Pathways, Neuronal Plasticity, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perception, Reaction Time, Thalamus, Touch, Neural Networks, Computer, Long-Term Potentiation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review