Review

The reflexive imagery task: An experimental paradigm for neuroimaging

  • High-level cognitions can be triggered into consciousness through the presentation of external stimuli and the activation of certain action sets. These activations arise in a manner that is involuntary, systematic and nontrivial. For example, in the Reflexive Imagery Task (RIT), subjects are presented with visual objects and instructed to not think of the names of the objects. Involuntary subvocalizations arise on roughly 80% of the trials. We review the findings from this paradigm, discuss neural findings that are relevant to the RIT, and present new data that further corroborate the reliability and robustness of the RIT, a paradigm that could be coupled with neuroimaging technologies. We developed an RIT variant in which two, non-focal objects are presented simultaneously. In previous RITs, visual objects were presented only one at a time, in the center of the screen, and subjects were instructed to focus on the center of the screen, where these objects were presented. Replicating the RIT effect, involuntary subvocalizations still occurred on a high proportion of trials (M = 0.78). An RIT effect arose for both objects on a considerable proportion of the trials (M = 0.35). These findings were replicated in a second experiment having a different sample of subjects. Our findings are relevant to many subfields of neuroscience (e.g., the study of high-level mental processes, attention, imagery and action control).

    Citation: Hyein Cho, Wei Dou, Zaviera Reyes, Mark W. Geisler, Ezequiel Morsella. The reflexive imagery task: An experimental paradigm for neuroimaging[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2018, 5(2): 97-115. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2018.2.97

    Related Papers:

    [1] Irshad Ahmad, Saeed Ahmad, Ghaus ur Rahman, Manuel De la Sen . Controllability of a generalized multi-pantograph system of non-integer order with state delay. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 13764-13784. doi: 10.3934/math.2023699
    [2] Sivaranjani Ramasamy, Thangavelu Senthilprabu, Kulandhaivel Karthikeyan, Palanisamy Geetha, Saowaluck Chasreechai, Thanin Sitthiwirattham . Existence, uniqueness and controllability results of nonlinear neutral implicit $ \mathcal{ABC} $ fractional integro-differential equations with delay and impulses. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 4326-4354. doi: 10.3934/math.2025200
    [3] Hawsar HamaRashid, Hari Mohan Srivastava, Mudhafar Hama, Pshtiwan Othman Mohammed, Musawa Yahya Almusawa, Dumitru Baleanu . Novel algorithms to approximate the solution of nonlinear integro-differential equations of Volterra-Fredholm integro type. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 14572-14591. doi: 10.3934/math.2023745
    [4] Ahmed Morsy, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Chokkalingam Ravichandran, Chandran Anusha . Sequential fractional order Neutral functional Integro differential equations on time scales with Caputo fractional operator over Banach spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5934-5949. doi: 10.3934/math.2023299
    [5] Jie Yang, Guoping Chen . Existence of solutions for impulsive hybrid boundary value problems to fractional differential systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8895-8911. doi: 10.3934/math.2021516
    [6] Yun Xin, Hao Wang . Positive periodic solution for third-order singular neutral differential equation with time-dependent delay. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 7234-7251. doi: 10.3934/math.2020462
    [7] M. Mallika Arjunan, Nabil Mlaiki, V. Kavitha, Thabet Abdeljawad . On fractional state-dependent delay integro-differential systems under the Mittag-Leffler kernel in Banach space. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1384-1409. doi: 10.3934/math.2023070
    [8] Madeaha Alghanmi, Shahad Alqurayqiri . Existence results for a coupled system of nonlinear fractional functional differential equations with infinite delay and nonlocal integral boundary conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 15040-15059. doi: 10.3934/math.2024729
    [9] Muhammad Nazam, Aftab Hussain, Asim Asiri . On a common fixed point theorem in vector-valued $ b $-metric spaces: Its consequences and application. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26021-26044. doi: 10.3934/math.20231326
    [10] Zhibo Cheng, Lisha Lv, Jie Liu . Positive periodic solution of first-order neutral differential equation with infinite distributed delay and applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 7372-7386. doi: 10.3934/math.2020472
  • High-level cognitions can be triggered into consciousness through the presentation of external stimuli and the activation of certain action sets. These activations arise in a manner that is involuntary, systematic and nontrivial. For example, in the Reflexive Imagery Task (RIT), subjects are presented with visual objects and instructed to not think of the names of the objects. Involuntary subvocalizations arise on roughly 80% of the trials. We review the findings from this paradigm, discuss neural findings that are relevant to the RIT, and present new data that further corroborate the reliability and robustness of the RIT, a paradigm that could be coupled with neuroimaging technologies. We developed an RIT variant in which two, non-focal objects are presented simultaneously. In previous RITs, visual objects were presented only one at a time, in the center of the screen, and subjects were instructed to focus on the center of the screen, where these objects were presented. Replicating the RIT effect, involuntary subvocalizations still occurred on a high proportion of trials (M = 0.78). An RIT effect arose for both objects on a considerable proportion of the trials (M = 0.35). These findings were replicated in a second experiment having a different sample of subjects. Our findings are relevant to many subfields of neuroscience (e.g., the study of high-level mental processes, attention, imagery and action control).


    In this paper, we consider the minimization problem of

    $ J(x0,u())=T0l(s,x(s),u(s))ds+h(x0,x(T)),
    $
    (1.1)

    subject to the $ \mathbb{R}^n $-valued integral-type state equation with $ \alpha \in (0, 1) $,

    $ x(t)=x0+t0f(t,s,x(s),u(s))(ts)1αds,a.e.t[0,T],
    $
    (1.2)

    and the terminal state constraint

    $ (x0,x(T))FR2n.
    $
    (1.3)

    In (1.1)–(1.3), $ x(\cdot) \in \mathbb{R}^n $ is the state with the initial state $ x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n $, and $ u(\cdot) \in U $ is the control with $ U $ being the control space (see Section 2). Hence, we consider the following terminal state-constrained optimal control problem:

    $ (P)infu()Up[0,T]J(x0,u()),subject to (1.2) and (1.3),
    $

    where $ \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $ is the set of admissible controls of (1.2). The problem aforementioned is referred to as (P) throughout this paper, and the precise problem statement of (P) is provided in Section 2. Note that the optimal control problems with and without state constraints capture various practical aspects of systems in science, biology, engineering, and economics [2,4,5,6,29,41,43].

    The state equation in (1.2) is known as a class of Volterra integral equations. The main feature of Volterra integral equations is the effect of memories, which does not appear in ordinary (state) differential equations. In fact, Volterra integral equations of various kinds have been playing an important role in modeling and analyzing of practical physical, biological, engineering, and other phenomena that are governed by memory effects [7,17,19,32,34]. We note that one major distinction between (1.2) and other classical Volterra integral equations is that (1.2) has a kernel $ \frac{f(t, s, x, u)}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}} $, which becomes singular at $ s = t $. In fact, $ \alpha \in (0, 1) $ in the singular kernel $ \frac{f(t, s, x, u)}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}} $ of (1.2) determines the amount of the singularity, in which the large singular behavior occurs with small $ \alpha \in (0, 1) $. Hence, the singular kernel in (1.2) can be applied to various areas of science, engineering, finance and economics, in which certain extraordinary phenomena have to be described. For example, the model of fluid dynamics may have some singular phenomena, leading to the deformation of the corresponding dynamic equation [17,33,36].

    The study of optimal control problems for various kinds of Volterra integral equations via the maximum principle have been studied extensively in the literature; see [3,12,13,18,20,22,23,30,35,39,40] and the references therein. Specifically, the first study on optimal control for Volterra integral equations (using the maximum principle) can be traced back to [40]. Several different formulations (with and without state constraints and/or delay) of optimal control for Volterra integral equations and their generalizations are reported in [3,7,12,18,20,30,35,39]. Some recent progress in different directions including stochastic frameworks can be found in [13,22,23,26,27,42]. We note that the above-mentioned existing works (with the exception of the stochastic case in [26,27,42]) considered the situation with nonsingular kernels only in Volterra integral equations, which corresponds to the case of $ f(t, s, x, u) = (t-s)^{1-\alpha} g(t, s, x, u) $ in (1.2). Hence, the problem settings in the earlier works can be viewed as a special case of (P).

    Recently, (P) without the terminal state constraint in (1.3) was studied in [34]. Due to the presence of the singular kernel, the technical analysis including the maximum principle (without the terminal state constraint) in [34] should be different from that of the existing works mentioned above. In particular, the proof for the well-posedness and estimates of Volterra integral equations in [34, Theorem 3.1] requires a new type of Gronwall's inequality. Furthermore, the maximum principle without the terminal state constraint in [34, Theorem 4.3] needs a different duality and variational analysis via spike perturbation. More recently, the linear-quadratic optimal control problem (without the state constraint) for linear Volterra integral equations with singular kernels was studied in [28].

    We note that the state equation in (1.2) is strongly related to classical state differential equations and (Caputo) fractional order differential equations. In particular, let $ \mathcal{D}_{\alpha} ^C [x(\cdot)] $ be the Caputo fractional derivative operator of order $ \alpha \in (0, 1) $ [32, Chapter 2.4]. Subsequently, by [32, Theorem 3.24 and Corollary 3.23], (1.2) becomes ($ \Gamma(\cdot) $ denotes the gamma function)

    $ DCα[x()](t)=f(t,x(t),u(t))x(t)=x0+1Γ(α)t0f(s,x(s),u(s))(ts)1αds.
    $
    (1.4)

    In addition, when $ f(t, s, x, u) = (t-s)^{1-\alpha} g(s, x, u) $, (1.2) is specialized to

    $ dx(t)dt=g(t,x(t),u(t))x(t)=x0+t0g(s,x(s),u(s))ds.
    $
    (1.5)

    As (1.4) and (1.5) are special cases of our state equation in (1.2), the state equation in (1.2) is able to describe various types of differential equations including fractional and ordinary differential equations. We also mention that there are several different results on optimal control for fractional differential equations; see [1,8,14,25,31] and the references therein.

    The aim of this paper is to obtain the Pontryagin maximum principle for (P). As noted above, since [34] did not consider the state-constrained control problem, (P) can be viewed as a generalization of [34] to the terminal state-constrained control problem. The main theoretical significances and technical difficulties are the proof of the maximum principle in Theorem 3.1, which is presented in Section 5. In particular, due to (i) the inherent complex nature of the Volterra integral equation with singular kernels, (ii) the presence of the terminal state constraint, and (iii) the generalized standing assumptions of $ f $, our maximum principle and its detailed proof must be different from those provided in the existing literature (e.g., [12,18,22,23,30,34,35,39]). Note also that as our state equation in (1.2) includes the case of Caputo fractional differential equation in (1.4), the maximum principle in Theorem 3.1 also covers [8, Theorem 3.12]. However, as the variational analysis of this paper and that of [8] are different, the proof techniques including the characterization of the adjoint equation must be different. Indeed, the maximum principle of this paper is new in the optimal control problem context and its proof requires a different technique, compared with the existing literature.

    The detailed statements of the main results of this paper are provided as follows:

    ● Regarding (ii), as mentioned above, the proof in Section 5 must be different from that of the unconstrained control problem in [34, Theorem 4.3]. Specifically, in contrast to [34, Theorem 4.3], due to the terminal state constraint in (1.3), we have to employ the Ekeland variational principle and the spike variation technique, together with the intrinsic properties of the distance function and the generalized Gronwall's inequality, to establish the duality analysis for Volterra-type forward variational and backward adjoint equations with singular kernels (see Lemma 5.2, Lemma 5.3 and Section 5.6). Note that this analysis leads to the desired necessary condition for optimality. Such a generalized proof of the maximum principle including the duality and variational analysis was not needed in [34, Theorem 4.3], as it did not consider the terminal state constraint in the corresponding optimal control problem. Note also that without the terminal state constraint, our maximum principle in Theorem 3.1 is reduced to the unconstrained case in [34, Theorem 4.3] (see Remark 3.1).

    ● As for (i), since our Volterra integral equation in (1.2) covers both singular and nonsingular kernels, the proof for the maximum principle in Section 5 should be different from that of the classical state-constrained maximum principle with the nonsingular kernel only (when $ f(t, s, x, u) = (t-s)^{1-\alpha} g(t, s, x, u) $ in (1.2)) studied in the existing literature (e.g., [12, Theorem 1], [22, Theorem 3.1] and [18,23,30,35,39]). In particular, due to the presence of the singular kernel in (1.2), we need a different proof for duality and variational analysis (see Lemma 3, Lemma 5.3 and Section 5.6). In addition, unlike the existing literature (e.g., [12, Theorem 1] and [22, Theorem 3.1]), our adjoint equation is obtained by the backward Volterra integral equation with the singular kernel, as a consequence of the new duality analysis with the singular kernel in Section 5.6 (see Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.2).

    ● Concerning (iii), we mention that unlike the existing works for classical optimal control of Volterra integral equations with nonsingular kernels (e.g., [12,(4) and (5)], [22, page 3437 and (A3)], and [18,23,39]), our paper assumes neither the differentiability of (singular or nonsingular) kernels in $ (t, s, u) $ (time and control variables) nor the essentially boundedness of a class of admissible controls (see Remark 3.2). Hence, the detailed proof of the maximum principle provided in this paper must be different from those given in the existing literature.

    As mentioned above, the main motivation of studying (P) is to provide the general maximum principle for terminal state-constrained optimal control problems of various classes of differential and integral type equations. Specifically, as mentioned above, (1.2) covers Volterra integral equations with singular and nonsingular kernels (see Remark 3.2), ordinary differential equations (see (1.5)), and Caputo-type fractional differential equations (see (1.4)). Hence, the terminal state-constrained optimal control problems for such kind of (differential and integral) state equations can be solved via the maximum principle of this paper (see Theorem 3.1). As stated above, the maximum principle for (P) has not been presented in the existing literature.

    We mention that Volterra integral equations and terminal state-constrained optimal control problems can be applied to various practical applications in science, engineering, economics, and mathematical finance; see [2,4,5,6,7,17,19,29,32,34,41,43] and the references therein. In particular, Volterra integral equations can be used to study the so-called tautochrone problem in mechanical applications, the heat transfer problem in diffusion models, the shock wave problem, the renewal equation in the theory of industrial engineering, the investment problem in economics, and the problem of American option pricing [7,17,19,32,34]. The interacting biological population model can be described by Volterra integral equations [7]. Furthermore, as mentioned above, in a practical point of views, the singular kernel in (1.2) can be applied to those Volterra integral equations to study their singular and/or peculiar behavior. Hence, we can use the modeling framework of (1.2) for any differential and Volterra integral equations to capture the memory and/or singular effects, which can be observed in real world (e.g., the deformation of fluid dynamics due to singular phenomena [17,33,36], and the dependency of the current stock price on past investment strategies over a period of time [7,17]). We also note that the (terminal) state-constrained optimal control problems can be formulated for these examples (e.g., the Volterra-type renewal integral equation in industrial applications, the Volterra-type heat transfer integral equation in diffusion models, and the Volterra-type investment integral equation in economics). In fact, there are huge potential applications of optimal control problems, and their various different practical examples in science, engineering, biology, economics, and mathematical finance, including the optimal control for partial differential equations (PDEs), can be found in [2,4,5,6,29,41,43] and the references therein.

    In view of the preceding discussion, we believe that the maximum principle of this paper broadens both the theoretical generality and the applicability of the domain of optimal control problems.

    The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The problem statement of (P) is given in Section 2. The statement of the maximum principle for (P) is provided in Section 3. We study an example of (P) in Section 4. The proof of the maximum principle is given in Section 5. Finally, we conclude this paper in Section 6.

    Let $ \mathbb{R}^n $ be an $ n $-dimensional Euclidean space, where $ \langle x, y \rangle : = x^\top y $ is the inner product and $ |x| : = \langle x, x \rangle^{1/2} $ is the norm for $ x, y \in \mathbb{R}^n $. For $ A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n} $, $ A^\top $ denotes the transpose of $ A $. Let $ [0, T] $ be a time interval such that $ T < \infty $. Let $ \mathbb{1}_{S}(\cdot) $ be the indicator function of any set $ S $. In this paper, $ C \geq 0 $ denotes a generic constant, whose value is different from line to line. For any differentiable function $ f:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^l $, let $ f_x : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l \times n} $ be the partial derivative of $ f $ with respect to $ x \in \mathbb{R}^n $. $ f_x = [f1,xfl,x]

    ^\top $ with $ f_{j, x} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times n} $, and when $ l = 1 $, $ f_x \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times n} $. For $ f : \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^l \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^l $, $ f_{x} : \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^l \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l \times n} $ for $ x \in \mathbb{R}^n $, and $ f_y: \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^l \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l \times l} $ for $ y \in \mathbb{R}^l $. For $ 1 \leq p < \infty $, define

    ● $ L^p([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) $: The space of functions $ \psi:[0, T] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n $ such that $ \psi $ is measurable and satisfies $ \|\psi(\cdot)\|_{L^p([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n)} : = (\int _0^T |\psi(t)|^p \text{d} t)^{1/p} < \infty $;

    ● $ C([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) $: The space of functions $ \psi:[0, T] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n $ such that $ \psi $ is continuous and satisfies $ \|\psi(\cdot)\|_{\infty} : = \sup_{t \in [0, T]} |\psi(t)| < \infty $.

    Next, we state the precise problem statement of (P) provided in Section 1. In (1.2), $ \alpha \in (0, 1) $ is the parameter of the singularity, $ x(\cdot) \in \mathbb{R}^n $ is the state with the initial state $ x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n $, and $ u(\cdot) \in U $ is the control with $ U $ being the control space. In (1.2), $ \frac{f(t, s, x, u)}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}} $ denotes the singular kernel (with the singularity appearing at $ s = t $), with $ f:[0, T] \times [0, T] \times \mathbb{R}^n \times U \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n $ being a generator. Note that $ \alpha \in (0, 1) $ determines the level of singularity of (1.2); see Figure 1. In (1.2), $ f $ is dependent on two time parameters, $ t $ and $ s $. While $ t $ is the outer time variable to determine the current time, $ s $ is the inner time variable describing the path or memory of (1.2) from $ 0 $ to $ t $. In (1.1), $ l:[0, T] \times \mathbb{R}^n \times U \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ is the running cost, while $ h: \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ is the terminal cost.

    Figure 1.  State trajectories when $ x_0 = 1 $ and $ f(t, s, x, u) = -0.4 \sin(2\pi x) - (t-s)^{1-\alpha} x $. Note that the state trajectory exhibits further singular behavior for small $ \alpha \in (0, 1) $.

    Assumption 1. (i) $ (U, \rho) $ is a separable metric space. $ f $ and $ f_x $ are continuous on $ [0, T] \times [0, T] $ and Lipschitz continuous in $ (x, u) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times U $ with the Lipschitz constant $ K \geq 0 $. $ |f(t, s, 0, u)| \leq K $ for $ (t, s, u) \in [0, T] \times [0, T] \times U $.

    (ii) $ l $ and $ l_x $ are continuous on $ [0, T] $ and Lipschitz continuous in $ (x, u) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times U $ with the Lipschitz constant $ K \geq 0 $. $ |l(t, 0, u)| \leq K $ for $ (t, u) \in [0, T] \times U $. $ h $, $ h_{x_0} $, and $ h_x $ are Lipschitz continuous in both variables with the Lipschitz constant $ K \geq 0 $.

    (iii) $ F $ is a nonempty closed convex subset of $ \mathbb{R}^{2n} $.

    For $ p > \frac{1}{\alpha} $ and $ u_0 \in U $, we define the space of admissible controls for (1.2) as

    $ Up[0,T]={u:[0,T]U|u is measurable&ρ(u(),u0)Lp([0,T];R+)}.
    $

    Note that $ p > \frac{1}{\alpha} $ is needed for the well-posedness of (1.2), which is stated in the following lemma [34, Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.3]:

    Lemma 2.1. Let (i) of Assumption 1 hold and $ p > \frac{1}{\alpha} $. For any $ (x_0, u(\cdot)) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $, (1.2) admits a unique solution in $ C([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) $, and there is a constant $ C \geq 0 $ such that $ \|x (\cdot) \|_{L^p([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n)} \leq C (1 + |x_0| + \|\rho(u(\cdot), u_0) \|_{L^p([0, T];\mathbb{R}_+)}) $.

    Under Assumption 1, the main objective of this paper is to solve (P) via the Pontryagin maximum principle. Note that Assumption 1 is crucial for the well-posedness of the state equation in (1.2) by Lemma 2.1 as well as the maximum principle of (P). Assumptions similar to Assumption 1 have been used in various optimal control problems and their maximum principles; see [9,12,13,15,16,20,22,23,27,33,34,37,39,40,43] and the references therein. Note also that we do not need the differentiability of $ f $ in $ (t, s, u) $, which was assumed in the existing literature (e.g., [12,(4) and (5)], [22, page 3437 and (A3)], and [18,23,39]); see Remark 3.2.

    We provide the statement of the maximum principles for (P). The proof is given in Section 5.

    Theorem 3.1. Let Assumption 1 hold. Suppose that $ (\overline{u}(\cdot), \overline{x}(\cdot)) \in \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] \times C([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) $ is the optimal pair for (P), where $ \overline{x}(\cdot) \in C([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) $ is the corresponding optimal state trajectory of (1.2). Then there exists a pair $ (\lambda, \xi) $, where $ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} $ and $ \xi = (\xi_1, \xi_2) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} $, such that the following conditions hold:

    Nontriviality condition: $ (\lambda, \xi) \neq 0 $, where $ \lambda \geq 0 $ and $ \xi \in N_F (\overline{x}_0, \overline{x}(T)) $ with $ N_F(x) $ being the normal cone to the convex set $ F $ defined in (5.1);

    Adjoint equation: $ p(\cdot) \in L^p([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) $ is the unique solution to the following backward Volterra integral equation with the singular kernel:

    $ p(t)=λlx(t,¯x(t),¯u(t))+Ttfx(r,t,¯x(t),¯u(t))(rt)1αp(r)dr1[0,T)(t)fx(T,t,¯x(t),¯u(t))(Tt)1α(λhx(¯x0,¯x(T))+ξ2),a.e.t[0,T];
    $

    Transversality conditions:

    $ (i)0ξ1,¯x0y1+ξ2,¯x(T)y2,y=(y1,y2)F,(ii)T0p(t)dt=ξ1+ξ2+λhx0(¯x0,¯x(T))+λhx(¯x0,¯x(T));
    $

    Hamiltonian-like maximum condition:

    $ λl(t,¯x(t),¯u(t))+Ttp(r)f(r,t,¯x(t),¯u(t))(rt)1αdr1[0,T)(t)(λhx(¯x0,¯x(T))+ξ2)f(T,t,¯x(t),¯u(t))(Tt)1α=maxuU{λl(t,¯x(t),u)+Ttp(r)f(r,t,¯x(t),u)(rt)1αdr1[0,T)(t)(λhx(¯x0,¯x(T))+ξ2)f(T,t,¯x(t),u)(Tt)1α},a.e.t[0,T].
    $

    Remark 3.1. Without the terminal state constraint in (1.3), Theorem 3.1 holds with $ \lambda = 1 $ and $ \xi = 0 $. This is equivalent to [34, Theorem 4.3].

    Remark 3.2. By taking $ f(t, s, x, u) = (t-s)^{1-\alpha} g(t, s, x, u) $ in Theorem 3.1, we obtain the maximum principle for the optimal control problems of classical Volterra integral equations with nonsingular kernels. Note that Theorem 3.1 is more general than the existing maximum principles for Volterra integral equations with nonsingular kernels (e.g., [12, Theorem 1], [22, Theorem 3.1] and [18,23,30,35,39]), where Theorem 3.1 assumes neither the differentiability of the corresponding kernel with respect to time and control variables nor the essential boundedness of a class of admissible controls (e.g., [12,(4) and (5)], [22, page 3437 and (A3)]). In addition, unlike the existing literature, the adjoint equation in Theorem 3.1 must be obtained in integral form, as a consequence of the new duality analysis with singular kernels in Section 5.6.

    The motivation of this section is to demonstrate the applicability of Theorem 3.1 to the state-constrained linear-quadratic problem for Volterra integral equations with singular kernels. We consider the minimization of the objective functional of $ J(x_0, u(\cdot)) = \int_0^T [ x(s) + \frac{1}{2} u(s)^2 ] \text{d} s $ subject to the $ \mathbb{R} $-valued Volterra integral equation with the singular kernel:

    $ x(t)=x0+t0t2u(s)(ts)1αds,a.e. t[0,T].
    $
    (4.1)

    For Case I, the terminal state constraint is given by $ (x_0, x(T)) \in F = \{x_0 = 10, \; x(T) = 10 \} \subset \mathbb{R}^2 $. Here, we may assume that $ U $ is an appropriate sufficiently large compact set satisfying Assumption 1. Note that this example is closely related to the (terminal) state-constrained linear-quadratic control problem, which can be applied to study the singular aspects of various applications in science, engineering, and economics.

    Let $ T = 3 $. By Theorem 3.1, the adjoint equation is $ p(t) = -\lambda $. From the first transversality condition in (i), we have $ \xi \in \mathbb{R}^2 $. Then by the second transversality condition in (ii), $ \int_0^3 p(t) \text{d} t = -3\lambda = \xi_1 + \xi_2 $. Hence, we can choose $ \lambda = 1 $ and $ \xi_1 = \xi_2 = -1.5 $. By the Hamiltonian-like maximum condition and the first-order optimality condition, the (candidate) optimal solution of Case I is as follows:

    $ ¯u(t)=3tt2(rt)1αdr+t21.51[0,3)(t)(3t)1α,a.e. t[0,3].
    $
    (4.2)

    We apply (4.2) to get the optimal state trajectory of (4.1). For Case I, the optimal state trajectory of (4.1) controlled by (4.2) when $ \alpha = 0.1 $ and $ \alpha = 0.5 $ is shown in Figure 2. Similar1y, when $ T = 10 $, the optimal state trajectory is depicted in Figure 3.

    Figure 2.  Case I: The optimal state trajectory of (4.1) when $ T = 3 $ (left: $ \alpha = 0.1 $, right: $ \alpha = 0.5 $).
    Figure 3.  Case I: The optimal state trajectory of (4.1) when $ T = 10 $ (left: $ \alpha = 0.1 $, right: $ \alpha = 0.5 $).

    We now consider Case II, where the (terminal) state constraint is generalized by

    $ (x_0,x(T)) \in F = \{x_0 = 10,\; x(T) \in [-10,10]\} \subset \mathbb{R}^2. $

    Similar to Case I, the adjoint equation is given by $ p(t) = -\lambda $. The first transversality condition in (i) implies that $ \xi_1 \in \mathbb{R} $ and $ \xi_2 = 0 $. From the second transversality condition in (ii), it follows that $ \int_0^3 p(t) \text{d} t = -3 \lambda = \xi_1 $. Hence, we can choose $ \lambda = 1 $, $ \xi_1 = -3 $, and $ \xi_2 = 0 $. Then analogous to (4.2), the (candidate) optimal solution of Case II is given by $ \overline{u}(t) = \int_t^3 \frac{- t^2 }{(r-t)^{1-\alpha}} \text{d} r $, a.e. $ t \in [0, 3] $. Figure 4 depicts the optimal state trajectory (with $ \alpha = 0.1 $ and $ \alpha = 0.5 $) when $ T = 3 $, and Figure 5 shows the case when $ T = 10 $. Note that the numerical results of this section are obtained by the finite-difference method to approximate the solutions of (4.1) and (4.2).

    Figure 4.  Case II: The optimal state trajectory of (4.1) when $ T = 3 $ (left: $ \alpha = 0.1 $, right: $ \alpha = 0.5 $).
    Figure 5.  Case II: The optimal state trajectory of (4.1) when $ T = 10 $ (left: $ \alpha = 0.1 $, right: $ \alpha = 0.5 $).

    Remark 4.1. The purpose of the examples in this section is to show an analytic method for applying Theorem 3.1. In the future research problem, a shooting-like method has to be developed to solve (P) numerically, which can be applied to several different complex situations of (P). This requires extending the classical approach (e.g., [11,16]) to the case of Volterra integral equations with singular kernels.

    This section provides the proof of Theorem 3.1.

    Recall that $ F $ is a nonempty closed convex subsets of $ \mathbb{R}^{2n} $. Let $ d_{F} : \mathbb{R}^{2n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+} $ be the standard Euclidean distance function to $ F $ defined by $ d_{F}(x) : = \inf_{y \in F} |x-y| $ for $ x \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} $. Note that $ d_{F}(x) = 0 $ when $ x \in F $. Then it follows from the projection theorem [38, Theorem 2.10] that there exists a unique $ P_{F}(x) \in F $ with $ P_{F}(x) : \mathbb{R}^{2n} \rightarrow F \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n} $, the projection of $ x \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} $ onto $ F $, such that $ d_{F}(x) = \inf_{y \in F} |x-y| = |x - P_{F}(x)| $. By [38, Lemma 2.11], $ P_{F}(x) \in F $ is the corresponding projection if and only if $ \langle x - P_{F}(x), y- P_{F}(x) \rangle \leq 0 $ for all $ y \in F $, which leads to the characterization of $ P_{F}(x) $. In view of [38, Definition 2.37], we have $ x - P_{F}(x) \in N_{F}(P_{F}(x)) $ for $ x \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} $, where $ N_{F}(x) $ is the normal cone to the convex set $ F $ at a point $ x \in F $ defined by

    $ NF(x):={yR2n|y,yx0,yF}.
    $
    (5.1)

    Based on the distance function $ d_F $, (1.3) can be written by $ d_F (\overline{x}_0, \overline{x}(T)) = 0 \; \Leftrightarrow\; (\overline{x}_0, \overline{x}(T)) \in F $.

    Lemma 5.1. [24, page 167] and [21, Proposition 2.5.4] The function $ d_F(x)^2 $ is Fréchet differentiable on $ \mathbb{R}^{2n} $ with the Fréchet differentiation of $ d_F(x)^2 $ at $ x \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} $ given by $ D d_F(x)^2(h) = 2 \langle x-P_F(x), h \rangle $ for $ h \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} $.

    Recall that the pair $ (\overline{x}(\cdot), \overline{u}(\cdot)) \in C([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $ is the optimal pair of (P). Note that the pair $ (\overline{x}_0, \overline{x}(T)) $ holds the terminal state constraint in (1.3). The optimal cost of (P) under $ (\overline{x}(\cdot), \overline{u}(\cdot)) $ can be written by $ J(\overline{x}_0, \overline{u}(\cdot)) $.

    Recall the distance function $ d_F $ in Section 5.1. For $ \epsilon > 0 $, we define the penalized objective functional as follows:

    $ Jϵ(x0,u())=(([J(x0,u())J(¯x0,¯u())+ϵ]+)2+dF(x0,x(T))2)12.
    $
    (5.2)

    We can easily observe that $ J_{\epsilon}(\overline{x}_0, \overline{u}(\cdot)) = \epsilon > 0 $, i.e., $ (\overline{x}_0, \overline{u}(\cdot)) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $ is the $ \epsilon $-optimal solution of (5.2). We define the Ekeland metric $ \widehat{d}:(\mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T]) \times (\mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T]) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+} $:

    $ ˆd((x0,u()),(˜x0,˜u())):=|x0˜x0|+¯d(u(),˜u()),
    $
    (5.3)

    where

    $ ¯d(u(),˜u()):=|{t[0,T]|u(t)˜u(t)}|,u(),˜u()Up[0,T].
    $
    (5.4)

    Note that $ (\mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T], \widehat{d}) $ is a complete metric space, and $ J_{\epsilon}(x_0, u) $ in (5.2) is continuous on $ (\mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T], \widehat{d}) $ [33, Proposition 3.10 and Corollary 4.2,Chapter 4].

    In view of (5.2)–(5.4), we have

    $ {Jϵ(x0,u())>0,(x0,u())Rn×Up[0,T],Jϵ(¯x0,¯u())=ϵinf(x0,u())Rn×Up[0,T]Jϵ(x0,u())+ϵ.
    $
    (5.5)

    By the Ekeland variational principle [33, Corollary 2.2,Chapter 4], there exists a pair $ (x_0^\epsilon, u^\epsilon) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $ such that

    $ ˆd((xϵ0,uϵ()),(¯x0,¯u()))ϵ,
    $
    (5.6)

    and for any $ (x_0, u(\cdot)) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $,

    $ {Jϵ(xϵ0,uϵ())Jϵ(¯x0,¯u())=ϵ,Jϵ(xϵ0,uϵ())Jϵ(x0,u())+ϵˆd((xϵ0,uϵ()),(x0,u())).
    $
    (5.7)

    We write $ (x^\epsilon(\cdot), u^\epsilon(\cdot)) \in C([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $, where $ x^{\epsilon}(\cdot) $ is the state trajectory of (1.2) under $ (x_0^\epsilon, u^\epsilon(\cdot)) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $.

    The next step is to derive the necessary condition for $ (x_0^\epsilon, u^\epsilon(\cdot)) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $. To this end, we employ the spike variation technique, as $ U $ does not have any algebraic structure. Hence, standard (convex) variations cannot be used.

    For $ \delta \in (0, 1) $, we define $ \mathcal{E}_{\delta} : = \{ E \in [0, T]\; |\; |E| = \delta T\} $, where $ |E| $ denotes the Lebesgue measure of $ E $. For $ E_{\delta} \in \mathcal{E}_{\delta} $, we introduce the spike variation associated with $ u^\epsilon $:

    $ uϵ,δ(s):={uϵ(s),s[0,T]Eδ,u(s),sEδ,
    $

    where $ u(\cdot) \in \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $. Clearly, $ u^{\epsilon, \delta}(\cdot) \in \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $. By definition of $ \overline{d} $ in (5.4),

    $ ¯d(uϵ,δ(),uϵ())|Eδ|=δT.
    $
    (5.8)

    We also consider the variation of the initial state given by $ x_0^{\epsilon} + \delta a $, where $ a \in \mathbb{R}^n $. Let $ x^{\epsilon, \delta}(\cdot) \in C([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) $ be the state trajectory of (1.2) under $ (x_0^\epsilon + \delta a, u^{\epsilon, \delta}(\cdot)) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $. By (5.7) and (5.8), it follows that

    $ ϵ(|a|+T)1δ(Jϵ(xϵ0+δa,uϵ,δ())Jϵ(xϵ0,uϵ())).
    $
    (5.9)

    We now study variational analysis of (5.9).

    Lemma 5.2. The following result holds:

    $ supt[0,T]|xϵ,δ(t)xϵ(t)δZϵ(t)|=o(δ),
    $

    where $ Z^\epsilon $ is the solution to the first variational equation related to the optimal pair $ (x_0^\epsilon, u^{\epsilon}(\cdot)) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $ given by

    $ Zϵ(t)=a+t0[fx(t,s,xϵ(s),uϵ(s))(ts)1αZϵ(s)ds+ˆf(t,s)(ts)1α]ds,a.e.t[0,T],
    $

    with

    $ ˆf(t,s):=f(t,s,xϵ(s),u(s))f(t,s,xϵ(s),uϵ(s)).
    $

    Proof. For $ \delta \in (0, 1) $, let $ Z^{\epsilon, \delta}(t) : = \frac{x^{\epsilon, \delta}(t) - x^{\epsilon}(t)}{\delta} $, a.e. $ t \in [0, T] $, where based on the Taylor expansion, $ Z^{\epsilon, \delta} $ can be written as (note that $ f_{x}^{\epsilon, \delta}(t, s) : = \int_0^1 f_x(t, s, x^{\epsilon}(s) + r (x^{\epsilon, \delta}(s) - x^{\epsilon}(s)), u^{\epsilon, \delta}(s)) \text{d} r $)

    $ Zϵ,δ(t)=a+t0(fϵ,δx(t,s)(ts)1αZϵ,δ(s)+1Eδ(s)δˆf(t,s)(ts)1α)ds,a.e.t[0,T].
    $

    Then we complete the proof by showing that $ \lim_{\delta \downarrow 0} \sup_{t \in [0, T]} |Z^{\epsilon, \delta}(t) - Z^{\epsilon}(t)| = 0 $.

    By Assumption 1, we have $ |\widehat{f}(t, s)| \leq 4 K + 4 K|x^\epsilon(s)| + 4 K\rho(u^\epsilon(s), u(s)) = : \widetilde{\psi}(s) $ and $ |f_x^{\epsilon, \delta}(t, s)| \leq K $. Based on Assumption 1, we can show that

    $ |xϵ,δ(t)xϵ(t)|b(t)+t0C(ts)1α|xϵ,δ(s)xϵ(s)|ds,
    $
    (5.10)

    where $ b(t) = |\delta a | + \int_0^t \mathbb{1}_{E_{\delta}}(s) \frac{\widetilde{\psi}(s)} {(t-s)^{1-\alpha}} \text{d} s $. By [34, Lemma 2.3], it follows that

    $ \sup\limits_{t \in [0,T]} |b(t)| \leq |\delta a| + | \int_0^t \mathbb{1}_{E_{\delta}}(s) \frac{\widetilde{\psi}(s)} {(t-s)^{1-\alpha}} \text{d} s | \leq C ( |\delta a| + |E_{\delta}|). $

    We apply the Gronwall's inequality in [34, Lemma 2.4] to get

    $ supt[0,T]|xϵ,δ(t)xϵ(t)|C(|δa|+|Eδ|)0,as δ0 due to (5.8).
    $
    (5.11)

    From Lemma 2.1, $ Z^{\epsilon} $ is a well-defined linear Volterra integral equation. Then with $ \hat{b}(t) : = |a| + \int_0^t \frac{\widetilde{\psi}(s)}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}} \text{d} s $ and using a similar approach, we can show that

    $ supt[0,T]|Zϵ(t)|C(|a|+˜ψ()Lp([0,T];R)).
    $
    (5.12)

    We obtain

    $ Zϵ,δ(t)Zϵ(t)=t0fϵ,δx(t,s)(ts)1α[Zϵ,δ(s)Zϵ(s)]ds+t0(1Eδ(s)δ1)ˆf(t,s)(ts)1αds+t0fϵ,δx(t,s)fx(t,s,xϵ(s),uϵ(s))(ts)1αZϵ(s)ds.
    $
    (5.13)

    Notice that by Assumption 1, together with (5.11) and (5.12), it follows that as $ \delta \downarrow 0 $,

    $ sup(t,s)Δ|(fϵ,δx(t,s)fx(t,s,xϵ(s),uϵ(s)))Zϵ(s)|C(|δa|+|Eδ|)0.
    $
    (5.14)

    For convenience, let

    $ b^{(1,1)}(t) : = \int_0^t \Bigl | \frac{f_x^{\epsilon,\delta}(t,s) - f_x(t,s,x^{\epsilon}(s),u^{\epsilon}(s))}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}} Z^{\epsilon}(s) \Bigr | \text{d} s $

    and

    $ b^{(1,2)}(t) : = \Bigl | \int_0^t ( \frac{ \mathbb{1}_{E_{\delta}}(s)}{\delta} - 1 ) \frac{\widehat{f}(t,s)}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}} \text{d} s \Bigr |. $

    By (5.14), $ \lim_{\delta \downarrow 0} \sup_{t \in [0, T]} b^{(1, 1)}(t) = 0 $. In addition, by invoking [34, Lemma 5.3.2], it follows that $ \sup_{t \in [0, T]} b^{(1, 2)}(t) \leq \delta. $. Then from (5.13), we have

    $ |Zϵ,δ(t)Zϵ(t)|b(1,1)(t)+δ+t0Zϵ,δ(s)Zϵ(s)(ts)1αds.
    $

    By applying [34, Lemma 2.4], it follows that

    $ \sup\limits_{t \in [0,T]} |Z^{\epsilon,\delta}(t) - Z^{\epsilon}(t)| \leq C (\sup\limits_{t \in [0,T]} b^{(1,1)}(t) + \delta). $

    Hence, we have

    $ \lim\limits_{\delta \downarrow 0} \sup\limits_{t \in [0,T]} |Z^{\epsilon,\delta}(t) - Z^{\epsilon}(t)| = 0. $

    This completes the proof.

    Based on the Taylor expansion,

    $ 1δ(J(xϵ0+δa,uϵ,δ())J(xϵ0,uϵ()))=T0lϵ,δx(s)Zϵ,δ(s)ds+T01Eδδˆl(s)ds+hϵ,δx0(T)a+hϵ,δx(T)Zϵ,δ(T),
    $

    where

    $ \widehat{l}(s) : = l(s,x^\epsilon(s),u(s)) - l(s,x^\epsilon(s),u^\epsilon(s)), $
    $ l_x^{\epsilon,\delta}(s) : = \int_0^1 l_x(s,x^{\epsilon}(s) + r (x^{\epsilon,\delta}(s) - x^{\epsilon}(s)),u^{\epsilon,\delta}(s)) \text{d} r, $
    $ h_{x_0}^{\epsilon,\delta}(T) : = \int_0^1 h_{x_0}(x_0^\epsilon + r \delta a, x^{\epsilon}(T) + r (x^{\epsilon,\delta}(T)-x^{\epsilon}(T))) \text{d} r, $

    and

    $ h_{x}^{\epsilon,\delta}(T) : = \int_0^1 h_x(x_0^\epsilon + r \delta a, x^{\epsilon}(T) + r (x^{\epsilon,\delta}(T)-x^{\epsilon}(T))) \text{d} r. $

    Let us define

    $ ˆZϵ(T)=T0lx(s,xϵ(s),uϵ(s))Zϵ(s)ds+T0ˆl(s)ds+hx0(xϵ0,xϵ(T))a+hx(xϵ0,xϵ(T))Zϵ(T).
    $

    By Lemma 2.1, $ \widehat{Z}^{\epsilon} $ is a well-defined Volterra integral equation. It then follows that

    $ 1δ(J(xϵ0+δa,uϵ,δ())J(xϵ0,uϵ()))ˆZϵ(T)=T0lϵ,δx(s)[Zϵ,δ(s)Zϵ(s)]ds+T0[lϵ,δx(s)lx(s,xϵ(s),uϵ(s))]Zϵ(s)ds+T0(1Eδδ1)ˆl(s)ds+[hϵ,δx0(T)hx0(xϵ0,xϵ(T))]a+hϵ,δx(T)[Zϵ,δ(T)Zϵ(T)]+[hϵ,δx(T)hx(xϵ0,xϵ(T))]Zϵ(T).
    $

    Notice that $ \lim_{\delta \downarrow 0} \sup_{t \in [0, T]} |Z^{\epsilon, \delta}(t) - Z^{\epsilon}(t)| = 0 $ by Lemma 5.2. By [33, Corollary 3.9,Chapter 4], it follows that $ \sup_{t \in [0, T]} | \int_0^t (\frac{1}{\delta} \mathbb{1}_{E_{\delta}}(s) - 1) \widehat{l}(s) \text{d} s | \leq \delta $. Hence, similar to Lemma 5.2, we have

    $ limδ0|1δ(J(xϵ0+δa,uϵ,δ)J(xϵ0,uϵ))ˆZϵ(T)|=0.
    $
    (5.15)

    From (5.9), we have

    $ ϵ(|a|+T)1Jϵ(xϵ0+δa,uϵ,δ())+Jϵ(xϵ0,uϵ())×1δ(([J(xϵ0+δa,uϵ,δ())J(¯x0,¯u())+ϵ]+)2([J(xϵ0,uϵ())J(¯x0,¯u())+ϵ]+)2+dF(xϵ0+δa,xϵ,δ(T))2dF(xϵ0,xϵ(T))2).
    $
    (5.16)

    Let

    $ λϵ:=[J(xϵ0,uϵ())J(¯x0,¯u())+ϵ]+Jϵ(xϵ0,uϵ())0,
    $
    (5.17)

    For $ \xi^{\epsilon} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} $ ($ \xi_1^{\epsilon} \in \mathbb{R}^n $ and $ \xi_2^{\epsilon} \in \mathbb{R}^n $), let

    $ ξϵ:=[ξϵ1ξϵ2]:={[xϵ0xϵ(T)]PF(xϵ0,xϵ(T))Jϵ(xϵ0,uϵ())NF(PF(xϵ0,xϵ(T))),(xϵ0,xϵ(T))F,0NF(PF(xϵ0,xϵ(T))),(xϵ0,xϵ(T))F.
    $
    (5.18)

    Then from (5.15), (5.17), and (5.18), as $ \delta \downarrow 0 $, (5.16) becomes

    $ ϵ(|a|+T)λϵˆZϵ(T)+ξϵ1,a+ξϵ2,Zϵ(T),
    $
    (5.19)

    where by (5.2), (5.17), and (5.18) (see also the discussion in Section 5.1),

    $ |λϵ|2+|ξϵ|2=1.
    $
    (5.20)

    Lemma 5.3. For any $ (a, u(\cdot)) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $, the following results hold:

    (i) $ \lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \{ |x_0^\epsilon - \overline{x}_0 | + \overline{d}(u^\epsilon(\cdot), \overline{u}(\cdot)) \} = 0 $;

    (ii) $ \sup_{t \in [0, T]} | Z^{\epsilon}(t) - Z(t) | = o(1), \; | \widehat{Z}^{\epsilon}(T) - \widehat{Z}(T) | = o(1) $, where

    $ Z(t)=a+t0[fx(t,s,¯x(s),¯u(s))(ts)1αZ(s)ds+˜f(t,s)(ts)1α]ds,ˆZ(T)=T0[lx(s,¯x(s),¯u(s))Z(s)+˜l(s)]ds+¯hx0a+¯hxZ(T),
    $

    with $ \widetilde{f}(t, s) : = f(t, s, \overline{x}(s), u(s)) - f(t, s, \overline{x}(s), \overline{u}(s)) $, $ \widetilde{l}(s) : = l(s, \overline{x}(s), u(s)) - l(s, \overline{x}(s), \overline{u}(s)) $, $ \overline{h}_{x_0} : = h_{x_0} (\overline{x}_0, \overline{x}(T)) $, and $ \overline{h}_{x} : = h_x (\overline{x}_0, \overline{x}(T)) $.

    Proof. Part (i) is due to (5.6). The proof of (ii) is similar to Lemma 5.2.

    We consider the limit of $ \epsilon \downarrow 0 $. Instead of taking the limit with respect to $ \epsilon \downarrow 0 $, let $ \{\epsilon_k\} $ be the sequence of $ \epsilon $ such that $ \epsilon_k \geq 0 $ and $ \epsilon_k \downarrow 0 $ as $ k \rightarrow \infty $. We replace $ \epsilon $ with $ \epsilon_k $. Then by (5.20), the sequences $ (\{\lambda^{\epsilon_k} \}, \{\xi^{\epsilon_k} \}) $ are bounded for $ k \geq 0 $. From the standard compactness argument, we may extract a subsequence of $ \{\epsilon_k\} $, still denoted by $ \{\epsilon_k\} $, such that

    $ ({λϵk},{ξϵk})(λ0,ξ0)=:(λ,ξ),as k.
    $
    (5.21)

    By (5.17) and the property of the limiting normal cones [41, page 43],

    $ λ0,ξNF(PF(¯x0,¯x(T)))=NF(¯x0,¯x(T)).
    $
    (5.22)

    From (5.21) and (5.20), together with Lemma 5.3, as $ k \rightarrow \infty $, it follows that

    $ λϵkˆZϵk(T)λˆZ(T)+|ˆZϵk(T)ˆZ(T)|+|λϵkλ|ˆZ(T)λˆZ(T),ξϵk1,a=ξ1,a+ξϵk1,aξ1,aξ1,a,ξϵk2,Zϵk(T)ξ2,Z(T)+|Zϵk(T)Z(T)|+|ξϵk2ξ2||Z(T)|ξ2,Z(T).
    $

    Therefore, as $ k \rightarrow \infty $, (5.19) becomes for any $ (a, u) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $,

    $ 0λˆZ(T)+ξ1,a+ξ2,Z(T).
    $
    (5.23)

    When $ \lambda > 0 $, the nontriviality condition in Theorem 3.1 holds. When $ \lambda = 0 $, from (5.20)–(5.22), we must have $ \xi \in N_F (\overline{x}_0, \overline{x}(T)) $ and $ |\xi^{\epsilon_k}| \rightarrow |\xi| = 1 $. Hence, we have $ (\lambda, \xi) \neq 0 $, i.e., they cannot be zero simultaneously. This proves the nontriviality condition in Theorem 3.1.

    Then by using the variational equations in Lemma 5.3, (5.23) becomes

    $ 0ξ1+λ¯hx0,a+ξ2+λ¯hx,a+T0λ˜l(s)ds+T0(λ¯hx+ξ2)1[0,T)(s)fx(T,s,¯x(s),¯u(s))(Ts)1αZ(s)ds+T0[λlx(s,¯x(s),¯u(s))Z(s)+(λ¯hx+ξ2)1[0,T)(s)˜f(T,s)(Ts)1α]ds.
    $
    (5.24)

    With the adjoint equation $ p(\cdot) \in L^p([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) $ in Theorem 3.1, (5.24) becomes

    $ 0ξ1+λ¯hx0,a+ξ2+λ¯hx,a+T0λ˜l(s)ds+T0[p(s)+Tsfx(r,s,¯x(s),¯u(s))(rs)1αp(r)dr]Z(s)ds+T0(λ¯hx+ξ2)1[0,T)(s)˜f(T,s)(Ts)1αds.
    $
    (5.25)

    In (5.25), the standard Fubini's formula and Lemma 5.3 lead to

    $ T0[p(s)+Tsfx(r,s,¯x(s),¯u(s))(rs)1αp(r)dr]Z(s)ds=T0p(s)[Z(s)s0fx(s,r,¯x(r),¯u(r))(sr)1αZ(r)dr]ds=T0p(s)[a+s0˜f(s,r)(sr)1αdr]ds.
    $

    Moreover, by definition of $ N_F $ in (5.1), it follows that for any $ y = (y_1, y_2) \in F $,

    $ ξ1,a+ξ2,aξ1,¯x0y1+a+ξ2,¯x(T)y2+a.
    $

    Hence, (5.25) becomes for any $ (a, u) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathcal{U}^p[0, T] $ and $ y = (y_1, y_2) \in F $,

    $ 0ξ1,¯x0y1+a+ξ2,¯x(T)y2+a+λ¯hx0a+λ¯hxaT0p(s)ds,a+T0p(s)s0˜f(s,r)(sr)1αdrds+T0(λ¯hx+ξ2)1[0,T)(s)˜f(T,s)(Ts)1αds+T0λ˜l(s)ds.
    $
    (5.26)

    We use (5.26) to prove the transversality conditions and the Hamiltonian-like maximum condition.

    In (5.26), when $ u = \overline{u} $, for any $ y = (y_1, y_2) \in F $, we have

    $ 0ξ1,¯x0y1+a+ξ2,¯x(T)y2+a+λ¯hx0a+λ¯hxaT0p(s)ds,a.
    $

    When $ (y_1, y_2) = (\overline{x}_0, \overline{x}(T)) $, the above inequality holds for any $ a, -a \in \mathbb{R}^n $, which implies

    $ T0p(s)ds=ξ1+ξ2+λ¯hx0+λ¯hx.
    $
    (5.27)

    Under (5.27), the above inequality becomes $ 0 \leq \langle \xi_1, \overline{x}_0 - y_1 \rangle + \langle \xi_2, \overline{x}(T) - y_2 \rangle $ for any $ y = (y_1, y_2) \in F $. This, together with (5.27), proves the transversality conditions in Theorem 3.1. In addition, as $ p (\cdot) \in L^p([0, T];\mathbb{R}^n) $, the nontriviality condition implies the nontriviality of the adjoint equation in Theorem 3.1.

    We prove the Hamiltonian-like maximum condition in Theorem 3.1. Define

    $ Λ(s,¯x(s),u):=λl(s,¯x(s),u)+Tsp(r)f(r,s,¯x(s),u)(rs)1αdr1[0,T)(s)(λ¯hx+ξ2)f(T,s,¯x(s),u)(Ts)1α.
    $

    When $ (y_1, y_2) = (\overline{x}_0, \overline{x}(T)) $ and $ a = 0 $ in (5.26), by the Fubini's formula, (5.26) can be written as

    $ T0Λ(s,¯x(s),u(s))dsT0Λ(s,¯x(s),¯u(s))ds.
    $
    (5.28)

    As $ U $ is separable, there exists a countable dense set $ U_0 = \{u_i, \; i \geq 1\} \subset U $. Moreover, there exists a measurable set $ S_i \subset [0, T] $ such that $ |S_i| = T $ and any $ t \in S_i $ is the Lebesgue point of $ \Lambda(t, \overline{x}(t), u(t)) $, i.e., it holds that $ \lim_{\tau \downarrow 0} \frac{1}{2\tau} \int_{t-\tau}^{t+\tau} \Lambda(s, \overline{x}(s), u(s)) \text{d} s = \Lambda(t, \overline{x}(t), u(t)) $ [10, Theorem 5.6.2]. We fix $ u_i \in U_0 $. For any $ t \in S_i $, define

    $ u(s):={¯u(s),s[0,T](tτ,t+τ),ui,s(tτ,t+τ).
    $

    Then (5.28) becomes

    $ 0limτ012τt+τtτ[Λ(s,¯x(s),¯u(s))Λ(s,¯x(s),ui)]ds=Λ(t,¯x(t),¯u(t))Λ(t,¯x(t),ui).
    $

    This is implies that

    $ Λ(t,¯x(t),ui)Λ(t,¯x(t),¯u(t)),uiU0,ti1Si.
    $
    (5.29)

    Since $ \cap_{i \geq 1} S_i = [0, T] $ by the fact that $ U_0 $ is countable, $ \Lambda $ is continuous in $ u \in U $, and $ U $ is separable, (5.29) implies the Hamiltonian-like maximum condition in Theorem 3.1. This completes the proof.

    In this paper, we have studied the Pontryagin maximum principle for the optimal control problem of Volterra integral equations with singular kernels. The main technical difference in the proof compared with the existing literature is the variational and duality analysis. In fact, the variational analysis in our paper needs to handle the singular kernel, and the duality analysis requires to characterize the integral-type adjoint equation with the singular kernel to get the desired Hamiltonian-like maximization condition.

    There are several important potential future research problems. One {direction} is to study (P) with additional generalized state constraints including the running state constraint. Another {direction} is to study the numerical aspects of solving (P) such as the shooting method and the Lagrangian collocation approach. Finally, one can extend (P) to the infinite-dimensional problem, which can be applied to studying optimal control of integral-type partial differential equations and integral-type systems with delays and singular kernels.

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    This research was supported in part by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (RS-2023-00235742), in part by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT, South Korea (NRF-2021R1A2C2094350) and in part by Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2020-0-01373, Artificial Intelligence Graduate School Program (Hanyang University)).

    The author declares no conflict of interest in this paper.

    [1] Di Lollo V, Enns JT, Rensink RA (2000) Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual pathways. J Exp Psychol Gen 129: 481–507. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.129.4.481
    [2] Mathewson KE, Gratton G, Fabiani M, et al. (2009) To see or not to see: Prestimulus alpha phase predicts visual awareness. J Neurosci 29: 2725–2732. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3963-08.2009
    [3] Crick F, Koch C (2003) A framework for consciousness. Nat Neurosci 6: 119–126. doi: 10.1038/nn0203-119
    [4] Most SB, Scholl BJ, Clifford ER, et al. (2005) What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychol Rev 112: 217–242. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.217
    [5] Merker B (2007) Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: A challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Behav Brain Sci 30: 63–134.
    [6] Freeman WJ (2006) William James on consciousness, revisited. Chaos Complexity Lett 1: 17–42.
    [7] Köhler W (1948) Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. Q Rev Biol.
    [8] Searle JR (2000) Consciousness. Annu Rev Neurosci 23: 557–578. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.557
    [9] Gazzaley A, D'Esposito M (2007) Unifying prefrontal cortex function: Executive control, neural networks and top-down modulation, In: Miller B, Cummings J (Ed.), The human frontal lobes: Functions and disorders, New York: Guilford Press, 187–206.
    [10] Ezequiel M, Godwin CA, Jantz TK, et al. (2015) Homing in on consciousness in the nervous system: An action-based synthesis. Behav Brain Sci 39: 1–17.
    [11] Ach N (1905/1951) Determining tendencies: Awareness, In: Rapaport D (Ed.), Organization and pathology of thought, New York: Columbia University Press, 15–38.
    [12] Freud S, Brill AA (1938) The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Modern Library.
    [13] Helmholtz Hv (1856/1925) Treatise of physiological optics: Concerning the perceptions in general, In: T. Shipley (Ed.), Classics in psychology, New York: Philosophy Library, 79–127.
    [14] James W (1950) The principles of psychology. Am J Psychol 2: 761.
    [15] Miller NE (1959) Liberalization of basic S-R concepts: Extensions to conflict behavior, motivation, and social learning, In: Koch S (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science, Vol. 2, New York: McGraw-Hill, 196–292.
    [16] Wegner DM (1990) White bears and other unwanted thoughts. Suppr Obsession Psychol Mental Control.
    [17] Lashley KS (1956) Cerebral organization and behavior, In: Proceedings of the association for research in nervouse and mental diseases, 36: 1–18.
    [18] Miller GA (1962) Psychology: The science of mental life. Pelican Books.
    [19] Fodor JA (1983) Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.
    [20] Morsella E (2005) The function of phenomenal states: Supramodular interaction theory. Psychol Rev 112: 1000–1021. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.1000
    [21] Ohman A, Mineka S (2001) Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychol Rev 108: 483–522. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.483
    [22] Bargh JA, Morsella E (2008) The unconscious mind. Perspect Psychol Sci 3: 73–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00064.x
    [23] Allen AK, Wilkins K, Gazzaley A, et al. (2013) Conscious thoughts from reflex-like processes: A new experimental paradigm for consciousness research. Conscious Cognition 22: 1318–1331. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2013.08.007
    [24] Bhangal S, Cho H, Geisler MW, et al. (2016) The prospective nature of voluntary action: Insights from the reflexive imagery task. Rev Gen Psychol 20: 101–117. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000071
    [25] Stroop JR (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol Gen 121: 15–23.
    [26] Gollwitzer PM (1999) Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol 54: 493–503. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
    [27] Snodgrass JG, Vanderwart M (1980) A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 6: 174–215.
    [28] Cho H, Godwin CA, Geisler MW, et al. (2014) Internally generated conscious contents: Interactions between sustained mental imagery and involuntary subvocalizations. Front Psychol 5: 1445.
    [29] Merrick C, Farnia M, Jantz TK, et al. (2015) External control of the stream of consciousness: Stimulus-based effects on involuntary thought sequences. Conscious Cognition 33: 217–225. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.014
    [30] Levelt WJM (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [31] Cho H, Zarolia P, Gazzaley A, et al. (2016) Involuntary symbol manipulation (Pig Latin) from external control: Implications for thought suppression. Acta Psychol 166: 37–41. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.03.004
    [32] Miller BL, Cummings JL (2007) The human frontal lobes: Functions and disorders, second edition. New York: Guilford Press.
    [33] Block N (2007) Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience. Behav Brain Sci 30: 481–548.
    [34] Morsella E, Wilson LE, Berger CC, et al. (2009) Subjective aspects of cognitive control at different stages of processing. Atten Percept Psychophysics 71: 1807–1824. doi: 10.3758/APP.71.8.1807
    [35] Mason MF, Norton MI, Horn JDV, et al. (2007) Wandering minds: The default network and stimulus-independent thought. Science 315: 393–345. doi: 10.1126/science.1131295
    [36] Mcvay JC, Kane MJ (2010) Does mind wandering reflect executive function or executive failure? Comment on Smallwood and Schooler (2006) and Watkins (2008). Psycho Bull 136: 198–207.
    [37] Mitchell JP, Heatherton TF, Kelley WM, et al. (2010) Separating sustained from transient aspects of cognitive control during thought suppression. Psychol Sci 18: 292–297.
    [38] Pasley BN, David SV, Mesgarani N, et al. (2012) Reconstructing speech from human auditory cortex. PLoS Biol 10: e1001251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001251
    [39] Wyland CL, Kelley WM, Macrae CN, et al. (2003) Neural correlates of thought suppression. Neuropsychologia 41: 1863–1867. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.08.001
    [40] Cushing D, Morsella E (2016) The polymodal role of consciousness in adaptive action selection: A paradigm for neuroimaging, In: Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the Society for Cognitive Neuroscience, New York.
    [41] Wegner DM (1994) Ironic processes of thought control. Psychol Rev 101: 34–52. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.34
    [42] Bhangal S, Merrick C, Morsella E (2015) Ironic effects as reflexive responses: Evidence from word frequency effects on involuntary subvocalizations. Acta Psychol 159: 33–40. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.04.006
    [43] Bhangal S, Allen AK, Geisler MW, et al. (2016) Conscious contents as reflexive processes: Evidence from the habituation of high-level cognitions. Conscious Cognition 41: 177–188. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.02.012
    [44] Merrick C, Cho H, Morsella E (2014) The reflexive imagery task: Unintentional imagery despite extensive training and voluntary set selection. Unpublished Manuscript, San Francisco State University.
    [45] Allen AK, Krisst L, Montemayor C, et al. (2016) Entry of involuntary conscious contents from ambiguous images. Psychol Conscious Theory Res Pract 3: 326–337. doi: 10.1037/cns0000095
    [46] Rassin E (2005) Thought suppression. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
    [47] Miller EK (2000) The prefrontal cortex and cognitive control. Nat Rev Neurosci 1: 59–65. doi: 10.1038/35036228
    [48] Munakata Y, Herd SA, Chatham CH, et al. (2011) A unified framework for inhibitory control. Trends Cognit Sci 15: 453–459. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.011
    [49] Anderson MC, Ochsner KN, Kuhl B, et al. (2004) Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted memories. Science 303: 232–235. doi: 10.1126/science.1089504
    [50] Giuliano RJ, Wicha NY (2010) Why the white bear is still there: Electrophysiological evidence for ironic semantic activation during thought suppression. Brain Res 1316: 62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.12.041
    [51] Gazzaley A, Nobre AC (2011) Top-down modulation: Bridging selective attention and working memory. Trends Cognit Sci 16: 129–135.
    [52] Cohen JD, Dunbar K, McClelland JL (1990) On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychol Rev 97: 332–361. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332
    [53] Brown JW, Braver TS (2005) Learned predictions of error likelihood in the anterior cingulate cortex. Science 307: 1118–1121. doi: 10.1126/science.1105783
    [54] Botvinick MM (2007) Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognit Affective Behav Neurosci 7: 356–366.
    [55] Levy BJ, Anderson MC (2002) Inhibitory processes and the control of memory retrieval. Trends Cognit Sci 6: 299–305. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01923-X
    [56] Levy BJ, Anderson MC (2008) Individual differences in the suppression of unwanted memories: The executive deficit hypothesis. Acta Psychol 127: 623–635. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.12.004
    [57] Levy BJ, Anderson MC (2012) Purging of memories from conscious awareness tracked in the human brain. J Neurosci 32: 16785–16794.
    [58] Hickok G (2009) Eight problems for the mirror neuron theory of action understanding in monkeys and humans. J Cognit Neurosci 21: 1229–1243. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21189
    [59] Schomers MR, Kirilina E, Weigand A, et al. (2015) Causal influence of articulatory motor cortex on comprehending single spoken words: TMS evidence. Cereb Cortex 25: 3894–3902. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu274
    [60] Buchsbaum BR (2013) The role of consciousness in the phonological loop: Hidden in plain sight. Front Psychol 4: 496.
    [61] Buchsbaum BR, D'Esposito M (2008) The search for the phonological store: From loop to convolution. J Cognit Neurosci 20: 762–778. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20501
    [62] Dewitt I, Rauschecker JP (2012) Phoneme and word recognitionin the auditory ventral stream. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 109: 505–514. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1113427109
    [63] Eggert GH, Wernicke C (1874/1977) Wernicke's works on aphasia: A sourcebook and review. Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
    [64] Gazzaniga MS, Ivry RB, Mangun GR (2009) Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind, 3rd edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
    [65] Peramunage D, Blumstein SE, Myers EB, et al. (2011) Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word production: An fMRI study. J Cognit Neurosci 23: 593–603. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21489
    [66] Scott M (2013) Corollary discharge provides the sensory content of inner speech. Psychol Sci 24: 1824–1830. doi: 10.1177/0956797613478614
    [67] Ford JM, Gray M, Faustman WO, et al. (2005) Reduced gamma-band coherence to distorted feedback during speech when what you say is not what you hear. Int J Psychophysiology 57: 143–150. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.03.002
    [68] Mahon BZ, Caramazza A (2008) A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. J Physiol Paris 102: 59–70.
    [69] Gruber O, Gruber E, Falkai P (2005) Neural correlates of working memory deficits in schizophrenic patients. Ways to establish neurocognitive endophenotypes of psychiatric disorders. Radiologe 45: 153–160.
    [70] Müller NG, Knight RT (2006) The functional neuroanatomy of working memory: Contributions of human brain lesion studies. Neurosci 139: 51–58. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.09.018
    [71] Sato M, Baciu M, Loevenbruck H, et al. (2004) Multistable representation of speech forms: A functional MRI study of verbal transformations. NeuroImage 23: 1143–1151. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.055
    [72] Vallar G, Corno M, Basso A (1992) Auditory and visual verbal short-term memory in aphasia. Cortex 28: 383–389. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(13)80148-7
    [73] Pugh SR, Morsella E, Geisler MW (2014) Involuntary cognitions of positive and negative images: Behavioral consequences and EEG correlates. Poster presented at the Graduate Student Showcase at San Francisco State University, San Francisco.
    [74] Fiedler K (2017) What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspect Psychol Sci 12: 46–61.
    [75] Nosek BA, Spies JR, Motyl M (2012) Scientific utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspect Psychol Sci 7: 615–631. doi: 10.1177/1745691612459058
    [76] Dehaene S (2014) Consciousness and the brain: Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. New York: Viking.
    [77] Koch C, Massimini M, Boly M, et al. (2016) Neural correlates of consciousness: Progress and problems. Nat Rev Neurosci 17: 307–321. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.22
    [78] Cohen JD, Macwhinney B, Flatt M, et al. (1993) PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 25: 257–271. doi: 10.3758/BF03204507
    [79] Morsella E, Miozzo M (2002) Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 28: 555–563.
    [80] Simon JR, Hinrichs JV, Craft JL (1970) Auditory S-R compatibility: Reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. J Exp Psychol 86: 97–102. doi: 10.1037/h0029783
    [81] Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, et al. (2006) A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 166: 1092–1097 doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
    [82] Cho H (2015) Cognitive bias in involuntary cognitions toward negative-valenced stimuli in highly anxious/depressive groups. Masters Thesis, San Francisco State University.
    [83] Bargh JA, Chartrand TL (2000) The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research, In: Reis HT, Judd CM (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 253–285.
    [84] Wundt W (1902/1904) Principles of physiological psychology. Translated from the Fifth German Edition (1904) by Titchener EB, London: Swan Sonnenschein.
    [85] Woodworth RS (1915) A revision of imageless thought. Psychol Rev 22: 1–27. doi: 10.1037/h0074506
    [86] Scullin MK, McDaniel MA, Einstein GO (2010) Control of cost in prospective memory: Evidence for spontaneous retrieval processes. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 36: 190–203.
    [87] Schultz DP, Schultz SE (1996) A history of modern psychology, sixth edition. San Diego: Harbrace College Publishers.
    [88] Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, DeWall N, et al. (2007) How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Pers Social Psychol Rev 11: 167–203. doi: 10.1177/1088868307301033
    [89] Firestone C, Scholl BJ (2016) Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects. Behav Brain Sci 39: 1–77. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X14001356
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Faïçal Ndaïrou, Delfim F. M. Torres, Pontryagin Maximum Principle for Incommensurate Fractional-Orders Optimal Control Problems, 2023, 11, 2227-7390, 4218, 10.3390/math11194218
    2. Yuna Oh, Jun Moon, The infinite-dimensional Pontryagin maximum principle for optimal control problems of fractional evolution equations with endpoint state constraints, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 6109, 10.3934/math.2024299
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5271) PDF downloads(1249) Cited by(4)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog