Automaticity and inhibition in action planning

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):44-45 (2004)

Authors
Abstract
We question the generalizability of Glover's model because it fails to distinguish between different forms of planning. The highly controlled experimental situations on which this model is based, do not reflect some important factors that contribute to planning. We discuss several classes of action that seem to imply distinct planning mechanisms, questioning Glover's postulation of a single “planning system.”.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X04390023
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 42,172
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Perception and Action Planning: Getting It Together.David A. Westwood & Melvyn A. Goodale - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):907-908.
Plans for Action.Melvyn A. Goodale & A. David Milner - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):37-40.
Planning and Control in Action.Scott Glover - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):57-69.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
23 ( #363,833 of 2,253,661 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #484,691 of 2,253,661 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature