Los Kruijne And Meeter Model: A Case Study
Comparing the two models
Los, Kruijne and Meeter (2015) investigated whether MTP could account for previously mentioned FP effects as well as transfer effects. Transfer effects occur when the current reaction times under a given FP distribution are influenced by a previous FP distribution. According to the hazard-based model these transfer effects are unlikely to occur, because participants were informed of the new FP distribution and under this model participants should be able to quickly tune in on the hazard function that applies in the new distribution. However, according to MTP there should be transfer effects across different FP distributions, because memory traces formed under a given FP distribution cannot be undone when starting a new FP …show more content…
According to the hazard function this awareness is achieved through conditional probability monitoring and is usually attributed to various frontal lobe processes (Stuss, Alexander, Shallice, Picton, Binns, Macdonald, Borowiec & Douglas, 2005).
Stuss et al (2005) showed that lesions in the superior medial frontal lobes were associated with slow reaction times and with failure to decrease reaction time after a warning signal. Furthermore, lesions in the right lateral frontal lobe prevented the decrease in reaction time with increasing FP that was seen in healthy subjects and in patients with lesions elsewhere in the frontal lobes.
Vallesi, Lozano & Correa (2013) showed that the FP and sequential effects are differently anatomically organized, i.e., lesions to right frontal regions cause a reduction of the FP effect, as was seen in Stuss et al. (2005), whereas lesions to left premotor regions are related to the disappearance of the sequential effects. In particular, left premotor patients do not show the reaction time advantage for short-short FP sequences, despite a normal FP
Los, Kruijne and Meeter (2015) investigated whether MTP could account for previously mentioned FP effects as well as transfer effects. Transfer effects occur when the current reaction times under a given FP distribution are influenced by a previous FP distribution. According to the hazard-based model these transfer effects are unlikely to occur, because participants were informed of the new FP distribution and under this model participants should be able to quickly tune in on the hazard function that applies in the new distribution. However, according to MTP there should be transfer effects across different FP distributions, because memory traces formed under a given FP distribution cannot be undone when starting a new FP …show more content…
According to the hazard function this awareness is achieved through conditional probability monitoring and is usually attributed to various frontal lobe processes (Stuss, Alexander, Shallice, Picton, Binns, Macdonald, Borowiec & Douglas, 2005).
Stuss et al (2005) showed that lesions in the superior medial frontal lobes were associated with slow reaction times and with failure to decrease reaction time after a warning signal. Furthermore, lesions in the right lateral frontal lobe prevented the decrease in reaction time with increasing FP that was seen in healthy subjects and in patients with lesions elsewhere in the frontal lobes.
Vallesi, Lozano & Correa (2013) showed that the FP and sequential effects are differently anatomically organized, i.e., lesions to right frontal regions cause a reduction of the FP effect, as was seen in Stuss et al. (2005), whereas lesions to left premotor regions are related to the disappearance of the sequential effects. In particular, left premotor patients do not show the reaction time advantage for short-short FP sequences, despite a normal FP