Cognitive Dynamics: Additive or Multiplicative?
Main Article Content
Keywords
Additive Factors Method, Nonlinear Dynamics, Interation Dominant Dynamics
Abstract
Introduction: Cognition is assumed to rely on distinct and additive substages such as perceptual encoding, memory, and motor control. Nevertheless, questions surrounding the assumptions of modularity and additivity persist. If a stable cognitive architecture exists, then repeatedly executing the same cognitive act should repeatedly engage the self-same structure. If discreet sub-acts behave in a manner consistent with a sum of independent random variables, then the assumption of additive and modular cognitive processes is reasonable. However, if they develop dependencies, then the assumption of additivity and modularity in cognition should be questioned.
Methods: The study required participants (N = 180) to successively execute identical elementary cognitive acts in a stacked 1-word, 2-word, and 4-word lexical decision task. Correct response time was the primary dependent measure.
Results: Statistical analyses revealed evidence for additivity in mean response time after a logarithmic transformation (r2 = .81, p < .05 & r2 = .74, p < .05). This pattern is consistent with multiplicative dynamics.
Conclusions: The results indicate that variance grows multiplicatively as a function of the number of sub-acts. A straightforward way to generate this pattern of variability growth is to assume the sub-acts develop successive dependencies and combine multiplicatively.
References
2. Van Orden GC, Paap KR. Functional neuroimages fail to discover pieces of mind in the parts of the brain. Philosophy of Science. 1997 Dec 1;64:S85-94. DOI: 10.1086/392589
3. Camerer C, Smith A, Kuhnen CM, Wargo DT, Samanez-Larkin G, Montague R, Levy DJ, Smith D, Meshi D, Kenning PH, Clithero J. Correspondence: Are cognitive functions localizable? Colin Camerer et al. versus Marieke van Rooij and John G. Holden. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2013;27(2):247-50. DOI: 10.1257/jep.27.2.247
4. Uttal WR. The New Phrenology: The limits of localizing cognitive processes in the brain. The MIT press; 2001.
5. Sternberg S. The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica. 1969 Jan 1;30:276-315. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9
6. Van Orden GC, Pennington BF, Stone GO. What do double dissociations prove? Cognitive Science. 2001 Jan;25(1):111-72. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog2501_5
7. Tankard JW. The Statistical Pioneers. Schenkman Books; 1984.
8. Van Orden GC, Holden JG, Turvey MT. Human cognition and 1/f scaling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2005 Feb;134(1):117. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.1.117
9. Uttal WR. On some two-way barriers between models and mechanisms. Perception & Psychophysics. 1990 Mar;48(2):188-203. DOI: 10.3758/BF03207086
10. Spieler DH, Balota DA. Bringing computational models of word naming down to the item level. Psychological Science. 1997 Nov;8(6):411-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00453.x
11. Kučera H, Francis WN. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Dartmouth; 1967.
12. Amon MJ, Holden JG. The mismatch of intrinsic fluctuations and the static assumptions of linear statistics. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 2021 Mar;12(1):149-73. DOI: 10.1007/s13164-018-0428-x
13. Kelso JS. Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. MIT press; 1995.
14. Van Orden GC, Holden JG, Turvey MT. Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2003 Sep;132(3):331. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.3.331
15. Annand CT, Fleming SM, Holden JG. Farey trees explain sequential effects in choice response time. Frontiers in Physiology. 2021 Mar 17;12:186. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.611145
16. Bruce A, Wallace D. Critical point phenomena: universal physics at large length scales. The New Physics. 1993. Cambridge University Press.
17. Olthof M, Hasselman F, Maatman FO, Bosman A, Lichtwarck-Aschoff A. Complexity theory of psychopathology. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/f68ej
18. Holden JG, Cosnard A, Laurens B, Asselineau J, Biotti D, Cubizolle S, Dupouy S, Formaglio M, Koric L, Seassau M, Tilikete C. Prodromal Alzheimer’s disease demonstrates increased errors at a simple and automated anti-saccade task. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. 2018 Jan 1;65(4):1209-23. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-180082
19. Holden JG, Greijn LT, van Rooij MM, Wijnants ML, Bosman AM. Dyslexic and skilled reading dynamics are self-similar. Annals of Dyslexia. 2014 Oct 1;64(3):202-21.DOI: 10.1007/s11881-014-0094-3
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright, 2025 by the authors. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.