tower of london problem solving task

• DOI: 10.1076/jcen.24.5.586.1006
• Corpus ID: 8077249

The Tower of London Spatial Problem-Solving Task: Enhancing Clinical and Research Implementation

• W. Berg , Dana L. Byrd
• Published in Journal of Clinical and… 1 August 2002

204 Citations

Planning abilities and the tower of london: is this task measuring a discrete cognitive function, the impact of problem structure on planning: insights from the tower of london task., assessing planning ability with the tower of london task: psychometric properties of a structurally balanced problem set..

• Highly Influenced

Reviewing the impact of problem structure on planning: A software tool for analyzing tower tasks

Deconstructing the tower: parameters and predictors of problem difficulty on the tower of london task, planning in parkinson's disease: a matter of problem structure, assessment of planning performance in clinical samples: reliability and validity of the tower of london task (tol-f), the tower of london: the impact of instructions, cueing, and learning on planning abilities., planning and problem solving: from neuropsychology to functional neuroimaging.

• 12 Excerpts

Deficits in planning time but not performance in patients with multiple sclerosis.

46 references, the role of memory in the tower of london task., tower of london procedure: a standard method and developmental data..

• Highly Influential

Mapping the network for planning: a correlational PET activation study with the Tower of London task.

Planning and spatial working memory in parkinson's disease., planning processes and age in the five-disc tower of london task, influence of planning time and first-move strategy on tower of hanoi problem-solving performance of mentally retarded young adults and nonretarded children., development of the tower of london-revised, towers of hanoi and london: contribution of working memory and inhibition to performance, planning and problem solving using the five disc tower of london task.

• 10 Excerpts

The Tower of London Test: Validation and standardization for pediatric populations.

Related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Tower of London: What Level of Planning Does it Measure?

• Research in Progress
• Published: 29 August 2017
• Volume 62 , pages 261–267, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• George K. Georgiou 1 ,
• Jian Li 2 , 3 &
• J. P. Das 1  

903 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

We examined which of two levels of planning, namely action and operations planning, are involved in Tower of London (TOL). One hundred nine university students (79 females; mean age = 20.81 years) from China were assessed on measures of action planning (Crack the Code), operations planning (Planned Connections, Planned Codes, Matching Numbers), and on TOL. The results of factor analysis showed first that TOL, scored as total number of correct responses, had a split loading on action and operations planning. TOL, scored as first move time, loaded on the same action planning factor represented by Crack the Code first move time. These findings suggest that different TOL scores may capture different levels of planning. The implications of these findings especially for clinical diagnosis and rehabilitation are briefly discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Spatial Planning: An ACT-R Model for the Tower of London Task

Basic Procedures for Facilitation

Sequential-Action Planning

Berg, W. K., & 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.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis . London: Cassell.

Google Scholar  

Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia, 59, 34–54.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Das, J. P., & Georgiou, G. (2016). Levels of planning predict different reading comprehension outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 24–28.

Das, J. P., Kar, B. C., & Parrila, R. K. (1996). Cognitive planning: The psychological basis of intelligent behavior . New Delhi: Sage.

Das, J. P., & Misra, S. B. (2015). Cognitive planning and executive functions: Applications for education and management . New Delhi: SAGE.

Book   Google Scholar  

Friedman, S. L., Scholnick, E. K., Bender, R. H., Vandergrift, N., Spieker, S., Pasek, K. H., et al. (2014). Planning in middle childhood: Early predictors and later outcomes. Child Development, 85, 1446–1460.

Georgiou, G., & Das, J. P. (2016). What component of executive functions contributes to normal and impaired reading comprehension in young adults? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 49–50, 118–128.

Humes, G. E., Welsh, M. C., Retzlaff, P., & Cookson, N. (1997). Towers of Hanoi and London: Reliability of two executive function tasks. Assessment, 4, 249–257.

Kafer, K. L., & Hunter, M. (1997). On testing the validity of planning/problem-solving tasks in a normal population. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3, 108–119.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kaller, C. P., Unterrainer, J. M., & Stahl, C. (2012). Assessing planning ability with the Tower of London task: Psychometric properties of a structurally balanced problem set. Psychological Assessment, 24, 46–53.

Leontjev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality . Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall.

Levin, H. S., Fletcher, J. M., Kufera, J. A., Harward, H. J., Lilly, M. A., Mendelsohn, D., et al. (1996). Dimensions of cognition measured by the Tower of London and other cognitive tasks in head-injured children and adolescents. Developmental Neuropsychology, 12, 17–34.

Levin, H. S., Mendelsohn, D. B., Lilly, M. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1994). Tower of London performance in relation to magnetic resonance imaging following closed head injury in children. Neuropsychology, 8, 171–179.

Lidstone, J. S. M., Meins, E., & Fernyhough, C. (2010). The roles of private speech and inner speech in planning in middle childhood: Evidence from a dual task paradigm. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 438–451.

Morris, R. G., Miotto, E. C., Feigenbaum, J. D., Bullock, P., & Polkey, C. E. (1997). Planning ability after frontal and temporal lobe lesions in humans: The effects of selection equivocation and working memory load. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 1007–1027.

Morris, R., & Ward, G. (2005). The cognitive psychology of planning . Hove: Psychology Press.

Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Das-Naglieri cognitive assessment system . Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Naglieri, J. A., Das, J. P., Stevens, J. J., & Ledbetter, M. F. (1991). Confirmatory factor analysis of planning, attention, simultaneous and successive cognitive processing tasks. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 1–17.

Naglieri, J. A., Taddei, S., & Williams, K. M. (2013). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of U.S. and Italian children’s performance on the PASS theory of intelligence as measured by the cognitive assessment system. Psychological Assessment, 25, 157–166.

Owen, A. M. (2005). Cognitive planning in humans: New insights from the Tower of London (TOL) task. In R. Morris & G. Ward (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of planning (pp. 135–152). New York: Psychology Press.

Papadopoulos, T. C. (2013). PASS theory of intelligence in Greek: A review. Preschool and Primary Education, 1, 41–66.

Papadopoulos, T. C., Panayiotou, G., Spanoudis, G., & Natsopoulos, D. (2005). Evidence of poor planning in children with attention deficits. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 611–623.

Parrila, R., Das, J. P., & Dash, U. N. (1996). Development of planning and its relation to other cognitive processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 597–624.

Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V. E., McPherson, S., & Gilhooly, K. J. (2001). Mental planning and the Tower of London. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 579–597.

Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 298, 199–209.

Strauss, E., Sherman, E., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Unterrainer, J. M., & Owen, A. M. (2006). Planning and problem solving: From neuropsychology to functional neuroimaging. Journal of Physiology, 99, 308–317.

Unterrainer, J. M., Rahm, B., Kaller, C. P., Leonhart, R., Quiske, K., Hoppe-Seyler, K., et al. (2004). Planning abilities and the Tower of London: Is this task measuring a discrete cognitive function? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26, 846–856.

Wang, X., Li, Q., & Deng, C. (2010). The application of the Das-Naglieri cognitive assessment system in examining Chinese primary school students’ cognitive development. Psychological Science, 33, 1307–1312. (in Chinese) .

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by The Twelfth Five-Year Guideline Project of Beijing Educations Scientific Research (CBA15048) to the second author.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, 5-143 Education North, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G5, Canada

George K. Georgiou & J. P. Das

Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George K. Georgiou .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Georgiou, G.K., Li, J. & Das, J.P. Tower of London: What Level of Planning Does it Measure?. Psychol Stud 62 , 261–267 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-017-0416-8

Download citation

Received : 12 May 2017

Accepted : 11 August 2017

Published : 29 August 2017

Issue Date : September 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-017-0416-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Tower of London
• Problem solving
• Executive functions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

The tower of London test: a test for dementia

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DIMI), Section of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Genova 16132, Italy.
• PMID: 19937502
• DOI: 10.1080/13607860903228804

Objectives: The Tower of London (ToL) is a problem-solving task, which is a valuable tool for the neuropsychological examination of a patient with a possible cognitive decline. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ToL in comparison to the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) in a group of older people with or without dementia.

Method: Seventy outpatients of both sexes, 30 with low-moderate dementia and 40 with apparently normal cognition were evaluated with the MMSE and the ToL task in the same day. The ToL score was calculated according to the Krikorian method and also the execution time was measured. The differences between groups were assessed with the unpaired t-test, and the relationship between two parameters was assessed with the analysis of the coefficient of linear regression. The results were adjusted for age and education.

Results: The evaluation of cognitive impairment by MMSE showed a significant difference in the two groups (p < 0.001). The mean scores (p < 0.001) and execution times (p < 0.05) of the ToL, resulted significantly lower in the patients affected by dementia. However, seven participants with dementia had a normal score in the ToL test, indicating that the executive neuropsychological tasks could be preserved notwithstanding the cognitive decline and nine participants with normal MMSE obtained a low ToL score, suggestive of the higher sensibility of the ToL for the executive task that reveals an unknown cognitive deficit.

Conclusion: The correlation between MMSE and ToL is good, but ToL test provides complementary information to the MMSE and vice versa.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Assessing cognitive changes in the elderly: reliable change indices for the Mini-Mental State Examination. Stein J, Luppa M, Maier W, Wagner M, Wolfsgruber S, Scherer M, Köhler M, Eisele M, Weyerer S, Werle J, Bickel H, Mösch E, Wiese B, Prokein J, Pentzek M, Fuchs A, Leicht H, König HH, Riedel-Heller SG; AgeCoDe Study Group. Stein J, et al. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012 Sep;126(3):208-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01850.x. Epub 2012 Feb 29. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012. PMID: 22375927
• The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool (BCAT): a new test emphasizing contextual memory, executive functions, attentional capacity, and the prediction of instrumental activities of daily living. Mansbach WE, MacDougall EE, Rosenzweig AS. Mansbach WE, et al. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2012;34(2):183-94. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2011.630649. Epub 2011 Dec 13. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2012. PMID: 22149477
• Neuropsychological examination in dementia. Dalla Barba G, Traykov L, Baudic S. Dalla Barba G, et al. Handb Clin Neurol. 2008;89:15-33. doi: 10.1016/S0072-9752(07)01202-X. Handb Clin Neurol. 2008. PMID: 18631728 Review. No abstract available.
• Functional cognitive assessment scale (FUCAS): a new scale to assess executive cognitive function in daily life activities in patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Kounti F, Tsolaki M, Kiosseoglou G. Kounti F, et al. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2006 Jul;21(5):305-11. doi: 10.1002/hup.772. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2006. PMID: 16856217
• In-office mental status testing: a practical guide. Mungas D. Mungas D. Geriatrics. 1991 Jul;46(7):54-8, 63, 66. Geriatrics. 1991. PMID: 2060803 Review.
• The effect of melatonin on cognitive functions following coronary artery bypass grafting: A triple-blind randomized-controlled trial. Jouybar R, Zohoori K, Khademi S, Akhlagh SH, Mani A, Akhlagh SAR, Asadpour E. Jouybar R, et al. J Res Med Sci. 2023 Mar 16;28:14. doi: 10.4103/jrms.jrms_118_21. eCollection 2023. J Res Med Sci. 2023. PMID: 37064795 Free PMC article.
• Planning Ability and Alertness After Nap Deprivation: Beneficial Effects of Acute Moderate-Intensity Aerobic Exercise Greater Than Sitting Naps. Du J, Huang Y, Zhao Z, Wang Y, Xu S, Zhang R, Xiao L, Xu J, Wang H, Su T, Tang Y. Du J, et al. Front Public Health. 2022 Mar 24;10:861923. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.861923. eCollection 2022. Front Public Health. 2022. PMID: 35400075 Free PMC article.
• Planning ability impairments in probable Alzheimer's disease patients: Evidence from the Tower of London test. Satler C, Guimarães L, Tomaz C. Satler C, et al. Dement Neuropsychol. 2017 Apr-Jun;11(2):137-144. doi: 10.1590/1980-57642016dn11-020006. Dement Neuropsychol. 2017. PMID: 29213505 Free PMC article.
• Differential patterns of planning impairments in Parkinson's disease and sub-clinical signs of dementia? A latent-class model-based approach. Köstering L, McKinlay A, Stahl C, Kaller CP. Köstering L, et al. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38855. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038855. Epub 2012 Jun 8. PLoS One. 2012. PMID: 22715417 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Taylor & Francis
• MedlinePlus Health Information

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Submit a Manuscript
• Advanced search

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Advanced Search

Visualizing Brain Activation during Planning: The Tower of London Test Adapted for Functional MR Imaging

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• Figures & Data
• Info & Metrics

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent positron emission tomography and single-photon emission CT studies using the Tower of London test have shown that brain activation during planning activities primarily resides in the prefrontal cortex. In this study, we adapted the Tower of London test for functional MR imaging.

METHODS: For use with functional MR imaging, a block design of the test was created, in which planning stages were contrasted with counting of colored balls. For nine healthy participants, multisection echo-planar functional MR imaging was performed to assess brain activation based on changes in blood oxygen level. Activation maps for individual participants and a group average map were created.

RESULTS: In the group average map, activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the anterior part of the cingulate cortex, the cuneus and precuneus, the supramarginal and angular gyrus in the parietal lobe, and the frontal opercular area of the insula was seen. These findings are in agreement with grouped data of previous positron emission tomography results. Functional MR imaging enabled us to investigate brain activation during planning activities with high spatial (and temporal) resolution in individual patients, showing that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was activated in all participants studied.

CONCLUSION: Presented is a working functional MR imaging version of the planning task. The high sensitivity of functional MR imaging may allow the use of this test for patients with possible (pre)frontal disorders.

Planning is defined as the ability to organize cognitive behavior in time and space (1) . It is necessary in situations in which a goal must be achieved through a series of intermediate steps, each of which individually does not lead directly toward that goal. A well-known test to evaluate planning in neuropsychological research is the Tower of London test (2) . For this test, the participant is instructed to move three different colored balls to match a target configuration by using a minimum number of moves. Although this test needs spatial processing abilities, it mainly depends on planning. Patients with frontal lobe pathologic abnormalities (eg, frontal lobe dementia, multiple sclerosis) perform worse than do healthy control participants.

Neuropsychological studies have shown that lesions in the frontal lobe (mainly the prefrontal cortex, which is located anterior to the motor part), might cause problems with planning (1–3) . Recent positron emission tomography and single-photon emission CT studies (4–7) that used the Tower of London test confirmed that brain activity during planning is located mainly in the prefrontal area, particularly in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. These data were based on averages of several participants, because these techniques usually have too low a sensitivity to detect activation in individual participants reliably.

Functional MR imaging is a noninvasive technique with which to measure brain activity based on changes in the blood oxygen level (8, 9) . Additional advantages of this technique compared with other functional brain imaging techniques are its high spatial and temporal resolution and the ability to study individual subjects. Paradigms applied in positron emission tomography studies, however, often cannot be used without major changes in functional MR imaging, because there are important differences in the test situations of the two techniques. In this study, the results of our fMR imaging–adapted version of the planning task are presented.

Task Paradigm

For application of the test with functional MR imaging, a block design was created, in which an “active” condition concerning planning and a “control” condition without planning were alternated (36 s per block, including an instruction; nine blocks in total). With the active condition, the participants are presented a baseline and a target configuration on a single screen ( Fig 1 ) viewed through a mirror in the magnet bore. Both configurations consist of three balls of different colors (blue, yellow, and red) placed on three vertical rods, which are one, two, and three balls in height, respectively. The minimum number of necessary moves to reach the target has to be planned in mind. One ball can be moved at a time, and only when there is no other ball on top. Sometimes counterintuitive moves are necessary to reach the target, one of the major aspects of planning. The participant holds two air bulbs and answers by pressing the one corresponding to the side where the correct answer is shown; one of two possibilities displayed at the bottom of the screen. With the control condition, participants simply have to count the yellow and blue balls together and again choose the correct answer (total number of balls) from two possibilities. The display is almost the same as with the active condition, except that more balls are displayed, with every time another number of yellow and blue balls ( Fig 1 ).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Example of the Tower of London screen.

A, Sample screen of one of the configurations of a planning problem. Upper, baseline configuration; lower, target configuration. In this example, the participant has been asked to move first the blue ball to the right rod, which is counterintuitive. Thereafter, the participant has to place the yellow ball on top of the red ball, the blue ball at its destination, the yellow ball on top of the blue ball, the red ball on the right rod, and, finally, the yellow ball at the target position (sixth move). Two alternatives are presented on each side of the screen, from which the participant had to choose the correct answer. The participant was asked to respond by pressing the air bulb at the corresponding side.

B, Sample screen of the control configuration. The participant has to count the yellow and blue balls altogether. In this example, the answer is six, which is indicated on the right.

Every condition block starts with an instruction of 4 s to plan the moves (active condition) or count the balls (control condition). Easy (two to four moves) and difficult (five to seven moves) configurations are presented in separate blocks to make it possible to compare two different levels of planning activity (easy and difficult) and a control situation without planning. The whole test is self-paced; a new trial (in the same block) is presented only after a response is obtained. No feedback regarding the correctness of the answer is provided during the task. After 36 s, the next block starts with a new instruction ( Fig 2 ), regardless of whether there was a response to the last trial. In total, 82 whole-brain volumes (nine blocks with nine volumes each and one volume preceding the start of the test) were scanned (one scan was obtained every 4 s) ( Fig 2 ). To ensure the participants were familiar with the procedure, the test was explained and practiced outside the procedure room before MR imaging was performed.

Overview of the test, imaging, and data analysis. With this task paradigm, easy and difficult planning and counting are performed in blocks. Every block lasts 36 s, including a 4-s instruction. A total of nine blocks were performed during the test. A total of 82 images were obtained, including those of a dummy before the test started. To account for the hemodynamic response delay, a 4-s delay in the analysis was used. The images obtained during the instruction (accounting for the hemodynamic response delay) were not used for further calculations. The resulting 71 images were used for the analysis (24 obtained during the difficult planning problems, 24 obtained during the easy planning problems, and 23 obtained during the control stage)

Participants

Nine healthy students (five men and four women; mean age, 22 years; age range, 20–27 years) were evaluated. The ethical review board of the Academic Hospital of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam approved of the study, and all participants provided informed consent.

Data Acquisition

Imaging was performed on a 1.5-T MR system with a standard circularly polarized head coil. Anatomic imaging was performed with a 3D gradient-echo T1-weighted sequence (15/7/1 [TR/TE/excitations]; flip angle, 8°; matrix, 256 × 256; field of view, 220 × 220 mm; section thickness, 2 mm; number of sections, 82). The sections were planned in the coronal plane with a rotation of approximately 30° of the cranial part in the anterior direction, to cover the whole brain in the least possible number of sections. For functional MR imaging, a whole-brain echo-planar imaging sequence (4000/64/1; flip angle, 90°; matrix, 64 × 128 interpolated to 128 × 128 mm; field of view, 220 × 220 cm; section thickness, 6 mm, intersection gap, 1.02 mm; number of sections, 23) was used. The echo-planar imaging sections were planned parallel to the anatomic sections.

Data Analysis

The first step of postprocessing was correction of motion artifacts (10) , with the consequence of corrupting the first and last section of each volume, which were discarded from further analysis. Next, the data were smoothed in-plane, resulting in a full width at half maximum of 5 mm in plane. The following steps were performed with AFNI software (11) . Activation was detected by correlating the time course of each voxel with a box car function representing the active and control blocks of the paradigm ( Fig 2 ). Also, the two levels of planning difficulty were correlated in the same way, without using the control stage images. Voxels with a signal increase during the active condition had a positive correlation coefficient and were called positive activation. The opposite was true for voxels with a relatively reduced signal. The box car function was delayed 4 s (1 image) in time to account partly for the hemodynamic response delay (12) . The images that corresponded with the time the instructions were displayed were not used in the analysis ( Fig 2 ).

The images were transformed into Talairach coordinate space (13) by defining reference line landmarks on the anatomic images. Individual activation maps were calculated and also used to create a group average. Correction for multiple comparisons was performed, accounting for the spatial extent of activation (14, 15) . Only voxels with a P value of at least 10 −4 were considered active, and 3D clusters of at least 104 mm 3 (ie, five connected active voxels) were included, resulting in a mean activation map of all participants with an overall P value < .05. In all individual and group images, the macroscopic position of significant activations was defined based on the visible gyral-sulcal pattern to specify the location in more anatomic detail.

All nine participants were studied successfully. Because we used a self-paced paradigm, the number of answers varied, with a mean of 13.7 answers (range, 9–17 answers) during both planning conditions together, 78.7% of which were correct (66.7–100%). For the easy configurations, a mean of 8.5 answers (6–11 answers) was provided, 82% of which (57–100%) were correct; for the difficult configurations, the results were 5.2 answers (3–8 answers), 71% of which (50–100%) were correct. With the control condition (only counting), the number of correct answers was 98% (89–100%), and the participants gave 36.4 answers (29–48 answers).

Activation in the group average images during the active condition (easy and difficult configurations combined) was seen on both sides in the frontal and parietal lobes, the cerebellum, and the insula ( Fig 3 and Table ). The frontal area showed activation bilaterally in the middle frontal gyrus and the adjacent part of the inferior frontal sulcus (with some preference for the right hemisphere) and in the anterior part of the cingulate gyrus ( Fig 3A ). The parietal and occipital regions involved were the precuneus and cuneus and the left supramarginal and angular gyrus ( Fig 3B ).

• View inline

Areas of fMR activation during the Tower of London task; planning condition (mean of all subjects)

Activated areas during the active condition of the Tower of London task. During the active condition (planning stage) of the task, activation ( red ) on the group average map (shown in Talairach format with coronal orientation) is shown. In the brain area from −3 anterior to +49 posterior, no activation was seen.   A, Frontal regions. Coronal sections of coordinates −44 to −3 (anterior part of the brain). Activity was noted in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the anterior part of the cingulate cortex, a part of the precentral cortex, and the frontal opercular area of the insula during planning. The right side shows slightly more activation than the left side. B, Parietal/occipital regions. Coronal sections of coordinates +49 to +80 (posterior part of the brain). Activation was noted in the cuneus and precuneus region, the marginal and angular gyrus in the parietal lobe, and the cerebellum during the active condition

Most participants showed activation in the same gyri that were activated on the group average ( Table ), and activation in the middle frontal gyrus (bilaterally) especially occurred in all participants. We did not find any significant differences in the activation when comparing the two levels of difficulty (easy and difficult planning).

The areas observed with a higher signal with the control condition were the middle part of the cingulate gyrus and the middle part of the insula on both sides, the fusiform gyrus and the pre- and postcentral gyrus. The majority of cases (67–100%) showed activation in the same gyri that were activated on the group average. An exception was the activation in the fusiform gyrus, which had a higher signal with the control condition compared with the planning condition, in only 44% of the participants ( Fig 3 and Table ).

A planning task, such as the Tower of London, has proven to be sensitive to prefrontal lesions (3, 5, 16) . A new version of the planning task, adapted for functional MR imaging, is presented. The group analysis showed activation during the planning stages in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the anterior part of the cingulate cortex, the cuneus and precuneus, the supramarginal and angular gyrus in the parietal lobe, and the frontal opercular area of the insula. These findings are in full agreement with grouped data of previous positron emission tomography results (5–7) . In addition, functional MR imaging enabled us to investigate brain activation during planning activities with high spatial (and temporal) resolution in individual participants, showing that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was activated in all individual participants studied.

Previous studies have indicated that activation associated with this task performance occurs especially in the prefrontal cortex (1, 2, 4–7) . Three positron emission tomography studies that evaluated the Tower of London test with healthy control participants (5–7) are herein discussed in comparison with our results.

The positron emission tomography studies conducted by Owen et al (5) , Baker et al (6) , and Dagher et al (7) used a block paradigm in which the participants had to plan the moves and press on a touch screen the number of moves (6) or perform each move separately by pressing on a touch screen the ball that has to be moved and thereafter the place to which it had to be moved (5, 7) . With the control condition, the participants did not need planning but only had to view the subsequent moves (6) or press the touch screen at the highlighted locations corresponding with locations pressed during the planning condition (5, 7) . Dagher et al not only analyzed the activation during planning, but the planning stages were analyzed also in a parametric way, based on task complexity (7) .

The three aforementioned positron emission tomography studies (group analysis) showed frontal lobe activation, in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex bilaterally (predominantly right hemisphere), the anterior cingulate gyrus bilaterally, and some frontal lobe motor areas. Activation was also noted in other frontal areas but not with complete consistency across the three studies; Owen et al (5) activated the left medial frontal cortex, and Baker et al (6) activated the right rostrolateral prefrontal cortex. All three studies also showed activation in the caudate nuclei (the left one in the study conducted by Baker et al and the right one in the other two studies). In addition to the frontally located activated areas, activation was also seen in the right anterior insula (frontal opercular area), the medial parietal cortex (precuneus) bilaterally, the left inferior parietal cortex, the right superior parietal cortex bilaterally, the lateral occipital cortex, and the left cerebellum and vermis (5–7) . Those areas are probably activated not only by the planning process itself but also by the motor and visual processes needed to perform this planning.

In the study conducted by Dagher et al (7) , the activated areas during planning could be divided, as a result of the parametric analysis, into those that did not correlate with the task complexity, such as the areas belonging to the dorsal stream of visual input (visual and posterior parietal cortical areas) and the execution of arm movements (frontal lobe motor areas) and those that correlated with the task complexity, such as lateral premotor cortex, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex bilaterally, and the right dorsal caudate nucleus.

In our functional MR imaging study, we found globally the same activated areas as in the aforementioned positron emission tomography studies ( Table ). Concerning the frontal areas, we observed significant activation in the middle frontal gyrus and the adjacent part of the inferior frontal sulcus, the precentral cortex, and the anterior part of the cingulate gyri. As in the positron emission tomography studies, activation was also noted in the caudate nuclei, but the volume of this activation was below our cluster size limit. We found only one main difference with the positron emission tomography studies. In our experiment, the occipital lobe and the primary motor areas were more active during the control condition. This could be explained in that with the control condition, the total number of configurations processed was higher.

One of the main areas activated during this planning task is the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Activation in this area is thought to be associated with active processing of both spatial and nonspatial information. Left-right differences probably exist, but there is no consensus regarding the nature of those differences. Baker et al (6) refer to literature on positron emission tomography in which the spatial information is predominantly represented in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the right hemisphere, whereas nonspatial working memory should be positioned predominantly at the left side. In our study, we noted bilateral frontal activation with a slightly larger activated area on the right side. This may be taken to indicate that spatial information processing is a prominent feature of the Tower of London paradigm. Such a suggestion seems logical in view of the test; moreover, activation of the precuneus and inferior parietal lobe has been associated with spatial processes and is correlated with prefrontal activity (6, 7) .

In contrast with the study conducted by Dagher et al (7) , who found complexity-related activation when performing a parametric analysis on five difficulty levels, including one-move problems (which require almost no planning), no differences in activation were found in our study when comparing the easy and difficult conditions. This could be explained by the decreased amount of data, our design of only two levels, and too small a difference of the two levels of planning. Another possible explanation is the difference in the response to be provided: in our test, one number, and in the study conducted by Dagher et al, the whole planning sequence, the last of which probably requires more planning activities.

Regarding the interpretation of the test score, for all except one participant, the test score was clearly beyond chance expectations (ie, more than 50% correct answers). The test score is of assistance only in determining whether the participant has performed the test or when no activation or activation in unexpected areas is seen, which was not the case for our participants. With the non-imaging versions of the test, the reliability of the test scores within individual participants is sometimes criticized. Our study tried only to localize the underlying brain areas activated, so the test score, and thereby its within-participants reliability, was less important for our goal. The high intersubject concordance for prefrontal activation may relate to the fact that for this test, it is not the number of correct answers but the process of planning (resulting in a correct answer or not) that is the most important determinant.

One of the main ideas regarding the use of functional MR imaging was to study participants individually ( Table ). All nine participants tested showed significant activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex when analyzed individually. The other areas that showed activation in the group analysis were also seen in most participants. Future research with functional MR imaging will enable us to correlate those findings with individual parameters.

The Tower of London test was successfully adapted for functional MR imaging, and the activated areas found were consistent with those of previous positron emission tomography studies, especially in the prefrontal cortex. Also, functional MR imaging allowed us to show significant activation in individual participants. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was active in all individual participants. The benefits of the functional MR imaging procedure could enable us to use this adapted version of this test to evaluate individual patients with presumed prefrontal dysfunctions.

• Acknowledgments

The Dutch MR Centre for MS Research is supported by the Stichting Vrienden MS Research, the University Hospital Vrije Universiteit, and the Medical Faculty of the Vrije Universiteit.

1 This work was supported in part by grants 96-278 and 97-330 from Stichting Vrienden MS Research (to R.H.C.L.).

↵ 2 Address reprint requests to R.H.C. Lazeron, Academic Hospital of the Vrije Universiteit, Department of Neurology, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

• ↵ Owen AM. Cognitive planning in humans: neuropsychologicalal, neuroanatomical and neuropharmacological perspectives. Prog Neurobiol 1997 ; 53 : 431 -450 CrossRef PubMed
• ↵ Shallice T. Specific impairments of planning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1982 ; 298 : 199 -209 PubMed
• ↵ Shallice T, Burgess PW. Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain 1991 ; 114 : 727 -741 Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Morris RG, Ahmed S, Syed GM, Toone BK. Neural correlates of planning ability: frontal lobe activation during the Tower of London test. Neuropsychologia 1993 ; 31 : 1367 -1378 CrossRef PubMed
• ↵ Owen AM, Doyon J, Petrides M, Evans AC. Planning and spatial working memory: a positron emission tomography study in humans. Eur J Neurosci 1996 ; 8 : 353 -364 CrossRef PubMed
• ↵ Baker SC, Rogers RD, Owen AM, et al. Neural systems engaged by planning: a PET study of the Tower of London task. Neuropsychologia 1996 ; 34 : 515 -526 CrossRef PubMed
• ↵ Dagher A, Owen AM, Boecker H, Brooks DJ. Mapping the network for planning: a correlation PET activation study with the Tower of London task. Brain 1999 ; 122 : 1973 -1987 Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Ogawa S, Lee TM, Nayak AS, Glynn P. Oxygenation-sensitive contrast in magnetic resonance image of rodent brain at high magnetic fields. Magn Reson Med 1990 ; 14 : 68 -78 PubMed
• Kwong KK, Belliveau JW, Chesler DA, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992 ; 89 : 5675 -5679 Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Woods RP, Cherry SR, Mazziotta JC. Rapid automated algorithm for aligning and reslicing PET images. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992 ; 16 : 620 -633 CrossRef PubMed
• ↵ Cox RW. AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. Comput Biomed Res 1996 ; 29 : 162 -173 CrossRef PubMed
• ↵ Kim SG, Ugurbil K. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the human brain. J Neurosci Methods 1997 ; 74 : 229 -243 CrossRef PubMed
• ↵ Talairach J, Tournoux P. Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain . Stuttgart: Thieme Verlag 1988 ;
• ↵ Cox RW, Jesmanowicz A, Hyde JS. Real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 1995 ; 33 : 230 -236 PubMed
• Forman SD, Cohen JD, Fitzgerald M, Eddy WF, Mintun MA, Noll DC. Improved assessment of significant activation in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): use of a cluster-size threshold. Magn Reson Med 1995 ; 33 : 636 -647 CrossRef PubMed
• Rezai K, Andreasen NC, Alliger R, Cohen G, Swayze V, O'Leary DS. The neuropsychology of the prefrontal cortex. Arch Neurol 1993 ; 50 : 636 -642 CrossRef PubMed
• Received November 10, 1999.
• Accepted after revision February 23, 2000.
• Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology

In this issue

• Table of Contents
• Index by author

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager

• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Jump to section

Related articles.

• No related articles found.
• Google Scholar

Cited By...

• Sleep spindles and slow waves are physiological markers for age-related changes in gray matter in brain regions supporting problem-solving skills
• Catechol O-Methyltransferase val158met Genotype Influences Frontoparietal Activity during Planning in Patients with Parkinson's Disease
• Health related quality of life in adults with repaired tetralogy of Fallot: psychosocial and cognitive outcomes

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

• Evaluating the Effects of White Matter Multiple Sclerosis Lesions on the Volume Estimation of 6 Brain Tissue Segmentation Methods
• Quiet PROPELLER MRI Techniques Match the Quality of Conventional PROPELLER Brain Imaging Techniques
• Predictors of Reperfusion in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke

Similar Articles

• Search Close search
• Find a journal
• Search calls for papers
• Journal Suggester
• Open access publishing

We’re here to help

Find guidance on Author Services

Planning and Problem solving Using the Five disc Tower of London Task

• Cite this article
• https://doi.org/10.1080/713755681
• Reprints & Permissions
• Read this article /doi/epdf/10.1080/713755681?needAccess=true

This paper investigates the planning and problem-solving abilities of normal adult subjects using a complex version of Shallice's (1982, 1988) Tower of London (TOL) task. Subjects were required to plan a fluent solution to a range of 5-disc TOL puzzles and then execute their formulated plans as fast as possible. The number of errors and the times taken to prepare the most efficient solutions increased monotonically with the number of chunks of subgoal moves. A subgoal move is a move that is essential for the solution of the puzzle, but which does not place a disc into its goal position. A subgoal chunk is a consecutive series of subgoal moves that all transfer discs to and from the same pegs. Furthermore, preparation time was found to be sensitive to a manipulation that increased the number of competing alternative choices, at critical steps in move selection. When subjects planned their action sequences “on-line”, analyses of individual moves and individual move latencies suggested that planning TOL solutions was limited by the difficulty in evaluating and selecting one action (or one subgoal chunk) from the set of competing potential actions at each step in the course of problem solving.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form . For more information, please visit our Permissions help page .

• Back to Top

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

• People also read
• Recommended articles

To cite this article:

Download citation, your download is now in progress and you may close this window.

• Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
• Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
• Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
• Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research

Login or register to access this feature

Register now or learn more

— An example Tower of London Task with start configuration and goal configura- tion with four and six moves. 

Contexts in source publication

Similar publications.

• Scott M Hayes

• Sheng-Hsien Feng

• Evdokia Tagkouli

• Int J Environ Res Publ Health

• Hongying Yang

• Ziyun Zhang
• Xiaosu Feng
• Chenyang Li
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up