Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T01:59:06.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distinction between long-term knowledge and short-term control processes is valid and useful

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2023

Richard M. Shiffrin Open the ORCID record for Richard M. Shiffrin [Opens in a new window] ,
Walter Schneider Open the ORCID record for Walter Schneider [Opens in a new window]  and
Gordon D. Logan
Richard M. Shiffrin
Affiliation:
Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA shiffrin@indiana.edu
Walter Schneider
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA wws@ptt.edu
Gordon D. Logan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA gordon.logan@vanderbilt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The binary distinction De Neys questions has been put forward many times since the beginnings of psychology, in slightly different forms and under different names. It has proved enormously useful and has received detailed empirical support and careful modeling. At heart the distinction is that between knowledge in long-term memory and control processes in short-term memory.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e140
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bryan, W. L., & Harter, N. (1899). Studies on the telegraphic language: The acquisition of a hierarchy of habits. Psychological Review, 6(4), 345–375.10.1037/h0073117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chein, J., & Schneider, W. (2012). The brain's learning and control architecture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 78–84.10.1177/0963721411434977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, K. K., Birdwell, R. L., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). If you don't find It often, you often don't find It: Why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64366.10.1371/journal.pone.0064366CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Cooper, B. P., & Gilbert, D. K. (1997). Automatic category search and its transfer: Aging, type of search, and level of learning. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 52B, 91–102.10.1093/geronb/52B.2.P91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108(3), 356–388.10.1037/0096-3445.108.3.356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huijbregts, S. C. J., De Sonneville, L. M. J., Van Spronsen, F. J., Berends, I. E., Licht, R., Verkerk, P. H., & Sergeant, J. A. (2003). Motor function under lower and higher controlled processing demands in early and continuously treated phenylketonuria. Neuropsychology, 17(3), 369–379.10.1037/0894-4105.17.3.369CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527.10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesulam, M.-M. (2000). Attentional networks, confusional states, and neglect syndromes. In Mesulam, M.-M. (Ed.), Principles of behavioral and cognitive neurology (2nd ed., pp. 174–256). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 107–121.10.1080/1057356970130202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled & automatic processing: From mechanisms to biology. Cognitive Science, 27, 525–559.10.1207/s15516709cog2703_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M. (1988). Attention. In Atkinson, R. C., Herrnstein, R. J., Lindzey, G., & Luce, R. D. (Eds.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology: Perception and motivation; learning and cognition (pp. 739–811). Wiley.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127CrossRefGoogle Scholar