David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):36-37 (2004)
Our commentary focuses, first, on Glover's proposal that only motor planning is sensitive to cognitive aspects of the target object, whereas the on-line control is completely immune to them. We present behavioural data showing that movement phases traditionally (and by Glover) thought to be under on-line control, are also modulated by object cognitive aspects. Next, we present data showing that some aspects of cognition can be coded by means of movement planning. We propose a reformulation of Glover's theory to include both an influence of cognition on on-line movement control, and a mutual influence between motor planning and some aspects of cognition.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Evangelia G. Chrysikou, Jared M. Novick, John C. Trueswell & Sharon L. Thompson-Schill (2011). The Other Side of Cognitive Control: Can a Lack of Cognitive Control Benefit Language and Cognition? Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):253-256.
H. Branch Coslett & Laurel J. Buxbaum (2004). The Planning–Control Model and Spatio-Motor Deficits Following Brain Damage. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):31-32.
Gordon Binsted & Matthew Heath (2004). Can the Motor System Utilize a Stored Representation to Control Movement? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):25-27.
Jos J. Adam & Ron F. Keulen (2004). FMRI Evidence for and Behavioral Evidence Against the Planning–Control Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):24-24.
David A. Westwood (2004). Planning, Control, and the Illusion of Explanation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):54-55.
Charles E. Wright & Charles Chubb (2004). Planning Differences for Chromaticity- and Luminance-Defined Stimuli: A Possible Problem for Glover's Planning–Control Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):55-56.
Bruce Bridgeman (2004). Defining Visuomotor Dissociations and an Application to the Oculomotor System. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):27-28.
P. Paolo Battaglini, Paolo Bernardis & Nicola Bruno (2004). At Least Some Electrophysiological and Behavioural Data Cannot Be Reconciled with the Planning–Control Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):24-25.
Valérie Gaveau & Michel Desmurget (2004). Do Movement Planning and Control Represent Independent Modules? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):35-36.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #363,552 of 1,906,920 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #277,703 of 1,906,920 )
How can I increase my downloads?