Psychological Research

, Volume 68, Issue 2–3, pp 189–198 | Cite as

What’s at the top in the top-down control of action? Script-sharing and ‘top-top’ control of action in cognitive experiments

Original Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

The distinction between bottom-up and top-down control of action has been central in cognitive psychology, and, subsequently, in functional neuroimaging. While the model has proven successful in describing central mechanisms in cognitive experiments, it has serious shortcomings in explaining how top-down control is established. In particular, questions as to what is at the top in top-down control lead us to a controlling homunculus located in a mythical brain region with outputs and no inputs. Based on a discussion of recent brain imaging experiments, we argue for the need to factor the interaction between the experimenter and the experimental participant into a realistic understanding of top-down control. We suggest these interactions involve a ‘sharing of scripts’ for perception and action that may be described as ‘top-top processes.’ We thereby expand the understanding of the homunculus to include elements of social cognition. This conceptual reconfiguration may grant some sort of asylum for a—not very omnipotent—homunculus.

Keywords

Response Selection Verbal Instruction Experimental Participant Cognitive Experiment Wisconsin Card Sorting Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

WCST

Wisconsin card sorting task

DLPFC

Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

RPS

Rock-paper-scissors

CRT

Choice reaction time task

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

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge helpful suggestions from Jakob Hohwy, Anthony Jack, and two anonymous reviewers. Andreas Roepstorff was supported by a grant from the Danish National Research Foundation to the Center for Functionally Integrative Neuroscience. Chris Frith is supported by the Wellcome Trust and the James S McDonnell Foundation.

References

  1. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  2. Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species. The co-evolution of language and brain. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  3. Deiber, M.-P., Passingham, R. E., Colebatch, J. G., Friston, K. J., Nixon, P. D., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1991). Cortical areas and the selection of movement. Experimental Brain Research, 84, 393–402.Google Scholar
  4. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Frith, C. (2002). Attention to action and awareness of other minds. Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 481–487.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Frith, C., & Dolan, R. J. (1997). Brain mechanisms associated with top-down processes in perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in London Biological Sciences, 352, 1221–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frith, C. D., Friston, K. J., Liddle, P. F., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1991). Willed action and the prefrontal cortex in man: a study with PET. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 244, 241–246.Google Scholar
  8. Gallagher, H., Jack, A. I., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. D. (2002). Imagining the intentional stance in a competitive game. NeuroImage, 16, 814–821.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallagher, H. L., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jack, A. I., & Roepstorff, A. (2002). Introspection and cognitive brain mapping: from stimulus-response to script-report. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 333–339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jahanshahi, M., Dirnberger, G., Fuller, R., & Frith, C. D. (2000). The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in random number generation: a study with positron emission tomography. NeuroImage, 12, 713–725.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Leonard, J. A. (1959). Tactual choice reactions. I. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 76–83.Google Scholar
  14. Lhermitte, F. (1986). Human autonomy and the frontal lobes. II. Patient behavior in complex and social situations: the ‘environmental dependency syndrome’. Annals of Neurology, 19, 335–343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. McCabe, K., Houser, D., Ryan, L., Smith, V., & Trouard, T. (2001). A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 11832–11835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milner, B. (1963). Effects of brain lessons on card sorting. Archives of Neurology, 9, 90–100.Google Scholar
  17. Monchi, O., Petrides, M., Petre, V., Worsley, K., & Dagher, A. (2001). Wisconsin card sorting revisited: distinct neural circuits participating in different stages of the task identified by event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 7733–7741.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakahara, K., Hayashi, T., Konishi, S., & Miyashita, Y. (2002). Functional MRI of macaque monkeys performing a cognitive set-shifting task. Science, 295, 1532–1536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nathaniel-James, D. A., & Frith, C. D. (2002). The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: evidence from the effects of contextual constraint in a sentence completion task. NeuroImage, 16, 1094–1102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Nimchinsky, E. A., Gilissen, E., Allman, J. M., Perl, D. P., Erwin, J. M., & Hof, P. R. (1999). A neuronal morphologic type unique to humans and great apes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 96, 5268–5273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nobre, A. C. (2001). The attentive homunculus: now you see it, now you don’t. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 477–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (in press) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral Brain Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. Roepstorff, A. (2001). Brains in scanners: an Umwelt of cognitive neuroscience. Semiotica, 134, 747–765.Google Scholar
  24. Roepstorff, A. (2002). Transforming subjects into objectivity. An ethnography of knowledge in a brain imaging laboratory. FOLK, Journal of the Danish Ethnographic Society, 44, 145–170.Google Scholar
  25. Roepstorff, A. (2003). A double dissociation in twentieth century psychology? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 62–67.Google Scholar
  26. Roepstorff, A. (2004). Mapping brain mappers: An Ethnographic Coda. In R. S. Frackowiak et al. (Eds.), Human brain function (2nd ed.), 1105–1117. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  27. Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2001) Effect of subjective perspective taking during simulation of action: a PET investigation of agency. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 546–550.Google Scholar
  28. Sato, Y., Akiyama, E., & Farmer, J. D. (2002). Chaos in learning a simple two-person game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99, 4748–4751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stuss, D. T., Levine, B., Alexander, M. P., Hong, J., Palumbo, C., Hamer, L., Murphy, K. J., & Izukawa, D. (2000). Wisconsin card sorting test performance in patients with focal frontal and posterior brain damage: effects of lesion location and test structure on separable cognitive processes. Neuropsychologia, 38, 388–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Tomasello, M., & Rakoczy, H. (2003). What makes human cognition unique? From individual to shared individuality. Mind & Language, 18, 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tremoulet, P. D., & Feldman, J. (2000). Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception, 29, 943–951.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vogeley, K., Bussfeld, P., Newen, A., Herrmann, S., Happe, F., Falkai, P., et al. (2001). Mind reading: neural mechanisms of theory of mind and self-perspective. NeuroImage, 14, 170–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Functionally Integrative NeuroscienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Wellcome Department of Imaging NeuroscienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations