Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26112128›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2015

The rat's not for turning: Dissociating the psychological components of cognitive inflexibility.

Simon R O Nilsson, Johan Alsiö, Elizabeth M Somerville, Peter G Clifton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Response Flexibility: The Role of the Lateral Habenula.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Neural Circuits Underlying Behavioral Flexibility: Insights FromFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Simon R O NilssonDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK; MRC and Wellcome Trust Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK.. Electronic address: sn440@cam.ac.uk.
Johan AlsiöDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK; MRC and Wellcome Trust Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK.; Department of Neuroscience, Unit of Functional Neurobiology, University of Uppsala, SE-75124 Uppsala, Sweden.
Elizabeth M SomervilleSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QG, UK.
Peter G CliftonSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F529054/1Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Executive function is commonly assessed by assays of cognitive flexibility such as reversal learning and attentional set-shifting. Disrupted performance in these assays, apparent in many neuropsychiatric disorders, is frequently interpreted as inability to overcome prior associations with reward. However, non-rewarded or irrelevant associations may be of considerable importance in both discrimination learning and cognitive flexibility. Non-rewarded associations can have greater influence on choice behaviour than rewarded associations in discrimination learning. Pathology-related deficits in cognitive flexibility can produce selective disruptions to both the processing of irrelevant associations and associations with reward. Genetic and pharmacological animal models demonstrate that modulation of reversal learning may result from alterations in either rewarded or non-rewarded associations. Successful performance in assays of cognitive flexibility can therefore depend on a combination of rewarded, non-rewarded, and irrelevant associations derived from previous learning, accounting for some inconsistencies observed in the literature. Taking this combination into account may increase the validity of animal models and may also reveal pathology-specific differences in problem solving and executive function.

Indexed as

RewardAnimalsAttentionCognitionDiscrimination LearningRatsReversal LearningAnimal modelsAttentional set shiftingCognitive flexibilityDiscrimination learningReversal learning

Identifiers

PMID26112128
PMCPMC4726702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.