The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disorganisation of behaviour after frontal lobe damage
Abstract
This paper presents a theory of the disorganisation in activity that can follow frontal lobe damage. This disorganisation is characterised by fragmented sequences of action, relevant parts being omitted and irrelevant parts introduced. Following Bianchi (1922) and Luria (1966), a defect is proposed in the role of purpose: control of action by its intended result. Concepts from human and machine problem solving are used to elaborate this idea. An attempt is then made to show which aspects of frontal impairment are relevant to assessment of the theory. Of most importance are the generality of impairment—its appearance across the range of information-processing domains and task components—and in particular the detailed behaviour surrounding failure to achieve known goals. These, I suggest, should form the basis of a functional characterisation of the disorder. An important point is that the theoretical function proposed—search for a structure of action optimising achievement of listed goals—is only one factor influencing the organisation of behaviour. Another is the repetition of familiar sequences of action in familiar settings. This may correspond to the common idea of a distinction between two modes of processing, active/controlled and passive/automatic.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Stroop, J. R. (1935) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054651 · Cited by 18,622
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
Neuropsychological studies of the frontal lobes.
Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1984) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.3 · Cited by 1,073
Go–no go learning after frontal lobe lesions in humans
Drewe, E. A. (1975) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/s0010-9452(75)80015-3 · Cited by 369
HUMAN BEHAVIOR AFTER EXTENSIVE BILATERAL REMOVAL FROM THE FRONTAL LOBES
Hebb, D. O. (1940) · Archives of Neurology And Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1940.02280080181011 · Cited by 237
Cited by
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624 · Cited by 7,351
Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709 · Cited by 4,472
Anterior Cingulate Conflict Monitoring and Adjustments in Control
Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089910 · Cited by 2,891
Exploring the Central Executive
Baddeley, A. (1996) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/713755608 · Cited by 2,390
Metadata
- Authors
- Duncan, J.
- Venue
- Cognitive Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1986-08
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 271-290
- ISSN
- 0264-3294 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0627
- OpenAlex
- W2130644299
- Cited by
- 452
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 2.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.