ArticleScientific reports2020
Parallel model-based and model-free reinforcement learning for card sorting performance.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychedelics do not always enhance cognitive flexibility: The potential role of time-varying effects on reward learning processes.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2026Review
- Attention/Working Memory and Executive Function in Parkinson's Disease: Review, Critique, and Recommendations.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025Review
- Article
- Cognitive biases as Bayesian probability weighting in context.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- The mechanism of social interaction deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder children: the role of cognitive flexibility.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Performance of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in Oncopediatric Patients in an Oncology Unit in Cali, Colombia: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Split-half reliability estimates of an online card sorting task in a community sample of young and elderly adults.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Persisting inhibition biases efficient rule inference under uncertainty.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- The future of neuropsychology is digital, theory-driven, and Bayesian: a paradigmatic study of cognitive flexibility.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Habits, Goals, and Behavioral Signs of Cognitive Perseveration on Wisconsin Card-Sorting Tasks.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Split-Half Reliability Estimates for a Self-Administered Computerized Variant.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Toward a Computational Neuropsychology of Cognitive Flexibility.Brain sciences · 2020Review
- A Computational Study of Executive Dysfunction in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Computational Modeling for Neuropsychological Assessment of Bradyphrenia in Parkinson's Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Executive Functions in Aging: An Experimental and Computational Study of the Wisconsin Card Sorting and Brixton Spatial Anticipation Tests.Experimental aging researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) is considered a gold standard for the assessment of cognitive flexibility. On the WCST, repeating a sorting category following negative feedback is typically treated as indicating reduced cognitive flexibility. Therefore such responses are referred to as 'perseveration' errors. Recent research suggests that the propensity for perseveration errors is modulated by response demands: They occur less frequently when their commitment repeats the previously executed response. Here, we propose parallel reinforcement-learning models of card sorting performance, which assume that card sorting performance can be conceptualized as resulting from model-free reinforcement learning at the level of responses that occurs in parallel with model-based reinforcement learning at the categorical level. We compared parallel reinforcement-learning models with purely model-based reinforcement learning, and with the state-of-the-art attentional-updating model. We analyzed data from 375 participants who completed a computerized WCST. Parallel reinforcement-learning models showed best predictive accuracies for the majority of participants. Only parallel reinforcement-learning models accounted for the modulation of perseveration propensity by response demands. In conclusion, parallel reinforcement-learning models provide a new theoretical perspective on card sorting and it offers a suitable framework for discerning individual differences in latent processes that subserve behavioral flexibility.
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.