ArticlePloS one2018
Normal development of context processing using the AXCPT paradigm.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety-relevant experience reshapes neural codes for ambiguous threat in adolescents.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
- Will you precrastinate? Sensitivity to potential performance costs and effort in chronic cannabis users and non-users.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Article
- The Development of Cognitive Control in Preschoolers and Kindergarteners: The Case of Post-Error Slowing and Delayed Disinhibition.Journal of Intelligence · 2024Article
- Changes in adaptation to time horizons across development.Developmental psychology · 2023Article
- Is the prefrontal cortex organized by supramodal or modality-specific sensory demands during adolescence?Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2021Article
- Contextual Processing and the Impacts of Aging and Neurodegeneration: A Scoping Review.Clinical interventions in aging · 2021Article
- The Motivation-Based Promotion of Proactive Control: The Role of Salience Network.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Context processing involves a flexible and continually updated representation of task relevant information and is a core aspect of cognitive control. The expectancy AX Continuous Performance Test (AXCPT) was designed to specifically measure context processing and has been widely applied to elucidate mechanisms of cognitive control and their impairments in conditions such as aging and schizophrenia. Here we present a large-sample, cross-sectional study of context processing aimed at characterizing its normal development from childhood to early adulthood (8 to 22 years old). We track the age-related changes in the standard AXCPT performance measures and also investigate their validity using detailed data-driven method. We show how critical maturational changes in context processing can be validly tracked from mid-adolescence onward with increasing reliance on preparatory, proactive strategies well into early adulthood. However, the early maturation from childhood into adolescence showed a sharp, two-fold discontinuity: while standard measures provide partially conflicting results suggesting an early worsening of proactive strategies, further analyses do not support their validity during this period. Our findings advocate the existence of multiple preparatory strategies that cannot be captured by indices that assume a simple dichotomy of proactive vs. reactive strategies. When evaluating context processing differences over development or in clinical populations, we advocate the explicit testing of the assumptions underlying standard AXCPT indices through complementary data-driven methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.