Renk-şekil boyutu değiştirme ve ayırt etme süreçlerinin planlamaya etkisi

Mevcut çalışmada iki boyutlu (renk-şekil) veya tek boyutlu (renk) boncuklardan oluşan farklı hedef örüntüleri olan, ama aynı hareketlerin ardışık sırayla yapılmasıyla çözülebilen planlama problemleri tasarlanmıştır ve Londra Kulesi Testinde (LKT) planlı hareketler yürütülürken kullanılan boncukların algısal özelliklerinin performansa etkisi araştırılmıştır. İki boyutlu LKT (2B-LKT), her iki problemde bir boyut değiştirerek (renkten şekle, şekilden renge geçerek) problemlerin çözülmesini gerektirmiştir. Çatışma Kulesi Testi (ÇKT) ise renkleri farklı ama aynı şekle sahip (ikisi yuvarlak, ikisi küp) yine iki boyutlu boncukları içermiştir ve katılımcılar her bir problemi boncukların ikisini şekline, kalan ikisini rengine göre hedefle eşleyerek çözmüştür. Dolayısıyla bu test her bir problemin çözümünde boncukların renk-şekil özelliklerinin ayırt edilmesini gerektirmiştir. Tek boyutlu (renk) LKT ile yapılan karşılaştırmalar planlama performansının renk-şekil boyutu değiştirme ve ayırt etme süreçlerinden etkilendiğine işaret etmiştir. Ayrıca, aynı problemin 4 kere üst üste çözülmesini gerektiren şartlarda renk ve şekil boyutları arasında bir geçiş yapması istenmeyen kontrol grubuyla, iki kere problemi bir boyuta (renk) göre çözdükten sonra diğer boyuta (şekil) geçerek iki kere daha çözen renk-şekil boyut değiştirme grubunun performansları eğilim (trend) analizi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, kontrol grubunun performansında doğrusal bir eğilimin olduğunu; buna karşılık renk-şekil boyut değiştirme grubunun performansında, boyut değiştirmenin etkisiyle, karesel ve kübik eğilim izlendiğini göstermiştir.

Effects of mental shift and stimulus discrimination on planning

The present study examined effects of perceptual features of the Tower of London (TOL) Test on planning performance by means of manipulating visual properties of the beads used to make planned movements. The same planning problems were used in three different versions of the TOL. That is, they were solved by exactly the same successive moves but each version had different target configurations that consisted of two dimensional (color and shape) or one dimensional (color) beads. In the two-dimensional TOL (2D-TOL test), the planning problems were solved according to either color or shape dimensions of four beads, whereas in the Tower of Conflict Test (TOC), participants were required to discriminate their four beads as two beads to be matched in shape and two in color to a problem configuration. The results revealed that performance on the TOL with one-dimensional beads significantly differed from those on the TOC and the 2D-TOL indicating that planning and execution of movements were influenced by mental shifts between two dimensions (color and shape) of the beads and stimulus discrimination processes. In addition, same problem was solved 4 times in succession by a control group, who did not shift between the two dimensions, and by a mental shift group, who were required to shift to the other dimension after solving a problem two times in succession, and trend analyses were used to examine changes due to mental shift. Polynomial contrasts revealed only a significant linear trend for the control group, while quadratic and cubic trends were observed across the repeated measures of same planning problem for the mental shift group.

___

Atalay, D. ve Cinan, S. (2007). Yetişkinlerde planlama becerisi: Londra Kulesi (LKDX) testinin standardizasyon ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 22, 25-37.
Berg, W. K. ve Byrd, D. L. (2002). The Tower of London spatial problem-solving task: Enhancing clinical and research implementation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 586-604.
Carder, H. P., Handly, S. J. ve Perfect, T. J. (2004). Deconstructing the Tower of London: Alternative moves and conflict resolution as predictors of task performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 1459-1483.
Cinan, S. ve Öktem-Tanör, Ö. (2002). An attempt to discriminate different types of executive functions in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Memory, 10, 277-289.
Culbertson, W. C. ve Zillmer, E. A. (2001). Tower of London-Drexel University (TOLDX): Technical Manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
Gilhooly, K. J., Wynn, V., Phillips, L. H„ Logie, R. H. ve Delia Sala, S. (2002). Visuo-spatial and verbal working memory in the five-disc Tower of London task: An individual differences approach. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 165-178.
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216.
Hommel, B. Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G. & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-937.
Kaller, C. P., Unterrainer, J. M., Rahm, B. ve Halsband, U. (2004). The impact of problem structure on planning: Insights from the Tower of London task. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 462-472.
Kafer, K. L. ve Hunter, M. (1997). On testing the face validity of planning/problem-solving tasks in a normal population. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3, 108-119.
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R. ve Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 77,248-294.
Millan, M. S., Perez, E. ve Chalasinska-Macukow, K. (1999). Pattern recognition with variable discrimination capability by dual non-linear optical correlation. Optics communications, 161, 115-122.
Mitchell, C. L. ve Poston, C. L. (2001). Effects of inhibiting of response on Tower of London performance. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 20, 164-169.
Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V., Gilhooly, K. J., Delia Sala, S. ve Logie, R. H. (1999). The role of memory in the Tower of London Task. Memory, 7, 209-231.
Robertson, L. C. (1986). From geştalt to neo-gestalt. T. C. Knapp ve L. C. Robertson, (Ed.), Approaches to cognition: Contrasts and controversies içinde (159-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 298, 199-209.
Shallice, T. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure. New York: Cambridge University Pres.
Temple, C. M., Carney, R. A. ve Mullarkey, S. (1996). Frontal lobe function and executive skills in children with Turner's syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology, 12, 343-363.
Tunstall, J. R. (1999). Improving the utility of the tower of London: A neuropsychological test of planning. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, School of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Unterrainer, J. M., Rahm, B., Leonhart, R., Ruff, C. C. ve Halsband, U. (2003). The Tower of London: The impact of instructions, cueing, and learning on planning abilities. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 675-683.
Unterrainer, J. M., Rahm, B., Halsband, U. ve Kaller, C. P. (2005). What is in a name: comparing the Tower of London with one of its variants. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 418-428.
Ward, R. (2002). Independence and integration of perception and action: An introduction. Visual Cognition, 9(4/5), 385-391.
Ward, G. ve Allport, A. (1997). Planning and problem-solving using the five-disc Tower of London. The Quarterly of Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 49-78.
Ward, G. ve Morris, R. (2005). Introduction to psychology of planning. R. Morris ve G. Ward, (Ed.), The cognitive psychology of planning içinde (1-34). Hove: Psychology Press.
Welsh, M. D., Satterlee-Cartmell, T. ve Stine, M. (1999). Towers of Hanoi and London: Contribution of working memory and inhibition to performance. Brain and Cognition, 41, 231-242.
Zook, N. A., Davalos, D. B., Delosh, E. L. ve 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, 286-292.