4.6 Article

A Mechanistic Account of Stress-Induced Performance Degradation

期刊

COGNITIVE COMPUTATION
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 207-227

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12559-020-09725-5

关键词

Performance degradation; Clarion; Cognitive architecture; Motivation; Implicit; Explicit

资金

  1. ARI grants [W74V8H-05-K-0002, W911NF-17-1-0236]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper proposes a mechanistic, process-based explanation based on the Clarion cognitive architecture, exploring the effects of motivation and metacognition on performance degradation. By simulating different tasks, a unified model of stress-induced performance degradation in high-pressure situations is presented, shedding light on these phenomena and pointing to mechanistic explanations of other related phenomena.
Stress-induced performance degradation in high-pressure situations has been documented empirically and generated different explanations. The existing theories often assume the distinction between implicit and explicit processing but speculate differently on the impact that high-pressure situations have on their interaction. Although few attempts have been made so far at clarifying these underlying processes mechanistically (e.g., computationally), this paper proposes a detailed, mechanistic, and process-based account based on the Clarion cognitive architecture. This account incorporates facets of existing theories, but explores motivation, metacognition, and their effects on performance degradation. This account has been applied to different tasks that have previously suggested different explanations. These tasks were simulated within the Clarion cognitive architecture and results matched well with human data. Utilizing data from different tasks, we come up with a unified model of stress-induced performance degradation in high-pressure situations, which shows a unified, motivation-based, mechanistic account of these phenomena is possible, thus shedding light on the phenomena and pointing to mechanistic explanations of other related phenomena.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据