Despite widespread use the cognitive demands of the five-disc Tower of London (TOL) are unknown. Research suggests that conflict moves (those that are essential to the solution but do not place a disc in its final position) are a key aspect of performance. These were examined in three studies via a verification paradigm, in which normal participants were asked to decide whether a demonstrated move was correct. Experiment 1 showed that individual move latencies increase with the number of intermediate moves until the disc is placed in its goal position (resolution). Post hoc tests suggested that the number of alternative moves and moves to resolve a disc were independent predictors of performance. Experiment 2 successfully manipulated these factors in an experimental design. Experiment 3 showed that they remain determinants of performance as familiarity increased. Overall, errors on the task were significantly correlated with spatial memory. The implications of these findings for the use of the TOL in cognitive psychology and as an assessment tool are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. D. (1998). The central executive: A concept and some misconceptions.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society4, 523–526.
2.
BaddeleyA. D.LogieR. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model.Models of working memory.MiyakeA.ShahP.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press28–61.
3.
BeveridgeM. J.JarroldC.PetitE. (2002). An experimental approach to genetic fingerprinting in young children.Infant and Child Development11, 107–123.
4.
CarderH. P.PerfectT. J.HandleyS. J.Ageing and Tower of London: Alternative moves, resolution gap and executive function as predictors of task performance.Poster presented at the BPS Workshop on the Neuropsychology of Ageing.Holland House, UK2003.
5.
DanemanM.TardifM. (1987). Working memory and reading skill re-examined.Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading.ColtheartM.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc491–508.
6.
GilhoolyK. J.PhillipsL. H.WynnV.LogieR. H.Della SalaS. (1999). Planning processes and age in the five-disc Tower of London task.Thinking and Reasoning5, 339–361.
7.
GilhoolyK. J.WynnV.PhillipsL. H.LogieR. H.Della SalaS. (2002). Visuo-spatial and verbal working memory in the five-disc Tower of London task: An individual differences approach.Thinking and Reasoning8, 165–178.
8.
GoelV.GrafmanJ. (1995). Are the frontal lobes implicated in “planning” functions? Interpreting data from the Tower of Hanoi.Neuropsychologia33, 623–642.
9.
HandleyS. J.CaponA.CoppC.HarperC. (2002). Conditional reasoning and the Tower of Hanoi: The role of spatial and verbal working memory.British Journal of Psychology93, 501–518.
10.
MacleodC. M.HuntE. B.MathewsN. N. (1978). Individual differences in the verfication of sentence-picture relationships.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour17, 493–507.
11.
MiyakeA.EmersonM. J.FriedmanN. P. (2000a). Assessment of executive functions in clinical settings: Problems and recommendations.Seminars in Speech and Language21, 169–183.
12.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000b). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: Alatent variable analysis.Cognitive Psychology41, 49–100.
13.
MorrisR. G.MiottoE. C.FeigenbaumJ. D.BullockP.PolkeyC. E. (1997). Planning ability after frontal and temporal lobe lesions in humans: The effects of selection equivocation and working memory load.Cognitive Neuropsychology14, 1007–1027.
14.
NormanD. A.ShalliceT. (1986). Attention to action. Willed and automatic control of behaviour.Consciousness and self-regulation.DavidsonR. J.SchwartzG. E.ShapiroD.New York: Plenum PressVol 4, 1–18.
15.
OwenA. M.DownesJ. D.SahakianB. J.PolkeyC. E.RobbinsT. W. (1990). Planning and spatial working memory following frontal lobe lesions in man.Neuropsychologia28, 1021–1034.
16.
OwenA. M.DoyonJ.PetridesM.EvansA. C. (1996). Planning and spatial working memory: A positronemission tomography study in humans.European Journal of Neuroscience8, 353–364.
17.
ParkerD. M.CrawfordJ. R. (1992). Assessment of frontal lobe dysfunction.A handbook of neuropsychological assessment.CrawfordJ.ParkerD.MckinlayW.Hove, UK: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates Ltd267–291.
18.
ParkinA. J. (1998). The central executive does not exist.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society4, 518–522.
19.
PhillipsL. H.WynnV.GilhoolyK. J.Della SalaS.LogieR. H. (1999). The role of memory in the Tower of London task.Memory7, 209–231.
20.
PhillipsL. H.WynnV. E.McPhersonS.GilhoolyK. J. (2001). Mental planning and the Tower of London.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54A, 579–597.
21.
RatcliffR. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers.Psychological Bulletin114, 510–532.
22.
ShalliceT. (1982). Specific impairments of planning.Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B298, 199–209.
23.
ShalliceT. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structureCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
ShalliceT.BurgessP. (1991). Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man.Brain114, 727–741.
25.
ShnirmanG. M.WelshM. C.RetzlaffP. D. (1998). Development of the Tower of London-revised.Assessment5, 355–360.
26.
WardG.AllportA. (1997). Planning and problem solving using the five-disc Tower of London task.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology50A, 49–78.
27.
WelshM. C.Satterlee-CartmellT.StineM. (1999). Towers of Hanoi and London: Contribution of working memory and inhibition to performance.Brain and Cognition41, 231–242.
