Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Set-shifting as a component process of goal-directed problem-solving

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In two experiments, we compared secondary task interference on Tower of London performance resulting from three different secondary tasks. The secondary tasks were designed to tap three different executive functions, namely set-shifting, memory monitoring and updating, and response inhibition. Previous work using individual differences methodology suggests that, all other things being equal, the response inhibition or memory tasks should result in the greatest interference. However, this was not found to be the case. Rather, in both experiments the set-shifting task resulted in significantly more interference on Tower of London performance than either of the other secondary tasks. Subsequent analyses suggest that the degree of interference could not be attributed to differences in secondary task difficulty. Results are interpreted in the light of related work which suggests that solving problems with non-transparent goal/subgoal structure requires flexible shifting between subgoals—a process that is held to be impaired by concurrent performance of a set-shifting task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Because of substantial skewness in some of the dependent measures, excess moves was square root transformed prior to analysis, while first move time and time per subsequent move were log transformed. The sphericity assumption was violated for the ANOVA for time per subsequent move, and so Greenhouse–Geisser corrections to degrees of freedom have been made for the analysis of variance of this measure.

  2. Recall that in all cases the baseline condition was performed before the dual-task conditions, but that the order of dual-task conditions was counterbalanced over participants. Performance of the primary task on the dual-task conditions therefore potentially benefits from prior practice on the single-task condition but suffers from the requirement to concurrently perform a secondary task. It is consequently not possible to interpret pairwise comparisons between the baseline condition and each dual-task condition.

  3. The difference between the dependent variable values in the baseline condition and the experimental conditions is presumably due to a combination of the baseline condition being easier because it does not involve dual-tasking, but harder because it is unfamiliar. Recall that the baseline condition was completed first by all participants but order of the three dual-task conditions was counterbalanced, so the dependent variables across the dual-task conditions are directly comparable.

References

  • Albert, D., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Age differences in strategic planning as indexed by the Tower of London. Child Development, 82, 1501–1517.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, A. D., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance 15: conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asato, M. R., Sweeney, J. A., & Luna, B. (2006). Cognitive processes in the development of TOL performance. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2259–2269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 49(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baughman, F. D., & Cooper, R. P. (2007). Inhibition and young children’s performance on the Tower of London task. Cognitive Systems Research, 8, 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, W. K., & Byrd, D. L. (2002). The Tower of London spatial problem-solving task: enhancing clinical and research implementation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(5), 586–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Senn, T. E. (2004). A comparison of performance on the Towers of London and Hanoi in young children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 743–754.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheetham, J. M., Rahm, B., Kaller, C. P., & Unterrainer, J. M. (2012). Visuospatial over verbal demands in predicting Tower of London planning tasks. British Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 98–116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christoff, K., Pranhakaran, V., Dorfman, J., Shao, Z., Kroger, J. K., Holyoak, K. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2001). Rostrolateral prefrontal cortex involvement in relation integration during reasoning. Neuroimage, 14, 1136–1149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, J. (1995). Performance on the Tower of London test after severe head injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 1(06), 537–544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. P., Wutke, K., & Davelaar, E. (2012). Differential contributions of set-shifting and monitoring to dual-task interference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(3), 587–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coxon, J. P., Stinear, C. M., & Byblow, W. D. (2009). Stop and go: the neural basis of selective movement prevention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6), 1193–1203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J.-P. (1997). A hierarchical neural network for planning behaviour. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 94, 13293–13298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donders, J., & Larsen, T. (2012). Clinical utility of the Tower of London—Drexel University, second edition (TOLDX) after adolescent traumatic brain injury. Developmental Neuropsychology, 37, 333–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilhooly, K. J., Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V., Logie, R. H., & Della Sala, S. (1999). Planning processes and age in the five-disc Tower of London task. Thinking and Reasoning, 5(4), 339–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glosser, G., & Goodglass, H. (1990). Disorders in executive control functions among aphasic and other brain-damaged patients. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12(4), 485–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, A. E., Fugelsand, J. A., Kraemer, D. J. M., Shamosh, N. A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2006). Frontopolar cortex mediates abstract integration in analogy. Brain Research, 1096, 125–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, E., Houwen, S., Scherder, E., & Visscher, C. (2010). On the relationship between motor performance and executive functioning in children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 468–477.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heaton, R. K. (1981). A manual for the wisconsin card sorting test. Odessa FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, Whole No. 89.

  • Kaller, C. P., Rahm, B., Köstering, L., & Unterrainer, J. M. (2011a). Reviewing the impact of problem structure on planning: a software tool for analyzing tower tasks. Behavioural Brain Research, 216(1), 1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaller, C. P., Rahm, B., Spreer, J., Mader, I., & Unterrainer, J. M. (2008). Thinking around the corner: the development of planning abilities. Brain and Cognition, 67(3), 360–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaller, C. P., Rahm, B., Spreer, J., Weiller, C., & Unterrainer, J. M. (2011b). Dissociable contributions of left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in planning. Cerebral Cortex, 21(2), 307–317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Robinson, M. (1981). Formal assessment of problem-solving and planning processes in preschool children. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 113–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köstering, L., McKinlay, A., Stahl, C., & Kaller, C. P. (2012). Differential patterns of planning impairments in Parkinson’s disease and sub-clinical signs of dementia? A latent-class model-based approach. PloS One, 7(6), e38855.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. (1994). On the ability to inhibit thought and action. In: Dagenbach, D. & Carr, T.H., (Eds.) Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language, Academic Press, NewYork, pp 189–239.

  • Luciana, M., Collins, P. F., Olson, E. A., & Schissel, A. M. (2009). Tower of London performance in healthy adolescents: the development of planning skills and associations with self-reported inattention and impulsivity. Developmental Neuropsychology, 34(4), 461–475.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi, G. M., Oosterlaan, J., Zuddas, A., Cavolina, P., Geurts, H., Redigolo, D., & Sergeant, J. A. (2008). Contrasting deficits on executive functions between ADHD and reading disabled children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 543–552.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1423–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. G., Miotto, E. C., Feigenbaum, J. D., Bullock, P., & Polkey, C. E. (1997). The effect of goal-subgoal conflict on planning ability after frontal- and temporal-lobe lesions in humans. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1147–1157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, S. D., Carpenter, P. A., Varma, S., & Just, M. A. (2003). Frontal and parietal participation in problem solving in the Tower of London: fMRI and computational modeling of planning and high-level perception. Neuropsychologia, 41(12), 1668–1682.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, S. D., & Pittman, G. (2007). The Tower of London: a study of the effect of problem structure on planning. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29(3), 333–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, R. C., & Frank, M. J. (2006). Making working memory work: a computational model of learning in the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia. Neural Computation, 18(2), 283–328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V., Gilhooly, K. J., Della Sala, S., & Logie, R. H. (1999). The role of memory in the Tower of London task. Memory, 7(2), 209–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V. E., McPherson, S., & Gilhooly, K. J. (2001). Mental planning and the Tower of London task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 54(2), 579–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainville, C., Lepage, E., Gauthier, W., Kergoal, M.-J., & Belleville, S. (2012). Executive function deficits in persons with mild cognitive impairment: a study with a Tower of London task. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34, 306–324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raye, C., Johnson, M., Mitchell, K., Greene, E., & Johnson, M. (2007). Refreshing: a minimal executive function. Cortex, 43(1), 135–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reverberi, C., D’Agostini, S., Skrap, M., & Shallice, T. (2005). Generation and recognition of abstract rules in different frontal lobe subgroups. Neuropsychologia, 43(13), 1924–1937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 298, 199–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shallice, T., Stuss, D. T., Picton, T. W., Alexander, M. P., & Gillingham, S. (2008). Mapping task switching in frontal cortex through neuropsychological group studies. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2, 79–85.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1975). The functional equivalence of problem solving skills. Cognitive Psychology, 7(2), 268–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, J. R., Riccio, C. A., & Castillo, C. L. (2009). Concurrent validity of the tower tasks as measures of executive function in adults: a meta-analysis. Applied Neuropsychology, 16, 62–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Towse, J. N., & Neil, D. (1998). Analyzing human random generation behaviour: a review of methods used and a computer program for describing performance. Behaviour Research, Instruments and Computers, 30(4), 583–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waldau, R. (1999). A developmental study of problem solving in children aged 3–6: Development of planning strategies. Unpublished BSc Thesis, University of London.

  • Welsh, M. C., Satterlee-Cartmell, T., & Stine, M. (1999). Towers of Hanoi and London: contribution of working memory and inhibition to performance. Brain and Cognition, 41(2), 231–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (1988). MRC Psycholinguistic Database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20(1), 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zook, N. A., Davalos, D. B., DeLosh, E. L., & Davis, H. P. (2004). Working memory, inhibition, and fluid intelligence as predictors of performance on Tower of Hanoi and London tasks. Brain and Cognition, 56(3), 286–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Eddy J. Davelaar and Karolina Wutke for assistance with some aspects of the design of the study reported here, and to Karolina Wutke and Toni Saint for assistance with the data collection. We are also grateful to Christoph P. Kaller and an anonymous reviewer for highly constructive feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript. This work was partly funded by a Faculty Research Grant from the Faculty of Science, Birkbeck, University of London, to Richard P. Cooper. All experimental work was approved by the departmental ethics committee prior to initiation and carried out in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. Verity Marsh is now at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust. Please address correspondence to Richard P. Cooper (R.Cooper@bbk.ac.uk).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK

    Richard P. Cooper & Verity Marsh

Authors
  1. Richard P. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Verity Marsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard P. Cooper.

Appendix: ToL problems used in experiments 1 and 2

Appendix: ToL problems used in experiments 1 and 2

See Figs. 5 and 6

Fig. 6
figure 6

The two practice and six experimental Tower of London problems used in experiment 2, using greyscale for ball colour. All problems have partially ambiguous goal states, but the problems differ in various other respects, including the number of options available for the initial move and whether one of those options involves moving a ball to its goal position. As in experiment 1, mapping of shades of grey to colours of the balls as presented to participants (red, green and blue) was randomised on each block so that participants did not become familiar with the problems

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cooper, R.P., Marsh, V. Set-shifting as a component process of goal-directed problem-solving. Psychological Research 80, 307–323 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0652-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0652-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation