ArticlePloS one2019
Stability and flexibility in cognitive control: Interindividual dynamics and task context processing.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Interplay Between Tonic and Phasic Pupil Activity and Cognitive Flexibility and Stability.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- The Role of Effector-Specific Task Representations in Voluntary Task Switching.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- No need to choose: Independent regulation of cognitive stability and flexibility challenges the stability-flexibility trade-off.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adaptive behaviour requires cognitive control for shielding current goals from distractors (stability) but at the same time for switching between alternative goals (flexibility). In this behavioural study, we examine the stability-flexibility balance in left- and right-handers during two types of decision-making, instructed (sensory cued) and voluntary (own choice), by means of distractor inhibition and hand/task switching. The data revealed that both groups showed opposite tendencies for instructed decision-making. Moreover, right-handers resisted distracting information more efficiently whereas left-handers showed superior switching abilities. When participants were involved in voluntary decision-making, no effects of handedness were noted, which suggests that free-choice processing alters the balance between stability and flexibility. These data illustrate that handedness is an index of individual variation during instructed decision-making, biasing the proficiency of cognitive control towards stability and flexibility of information processing. These biases can however be overruled by top-down strategies that dominate during voluntary decision-making. Overall, the research underlines the antagonistic functions of stability and flexibility in decision-making, and offers an approach for examining cognitive control and the role of internal and external factors in balancing the stability-flexibility trade-off.
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.