ArticleScientific reports2020
A computational model of language functions in flexible goal-directed behaviour.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modeling metacognition and executive functions in the metacognitive wisconsin card sorting test using the neuropsychological digital-twin method.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An experimental and computational investigation of executive functions and inner speech in schizophrenia spectrum disorders.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing executive functions and metacognition: translational potential of the Metacognitive Wisconsin Card Sorting Test for developmental neuropsychology.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Review
- Concepts, abstractness and inner speech.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- A computational model of inner speech supporting flexible goal-directed behaviour in Autism.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Integrating unsupervised and reinforcement learning in human categorical perception: A computational model.PloS one · 2022Article
- From Affordances to Abstract Words: The Flexibility of Sensorimotor Grounding.Brain sciences · 2021Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The function of language in high-order goal-directed human cognition is an important topic at the centre of current debates. Experimental evidence shows that inner speech, representing a self-directed form of language, empowers cognitive processes such as working memory, perception, categorization, and executive functions. Here we study the relations between inner speech and processes like feedback processing and cognitive flexibility. To this aim we propose a computational model that controls an artificial agent who uses inner speech to internally manipulate its representations. The agent is able to reproduce human behavioural data collected during the solution of the Wisconsin Card Sorting test, a neuropsychological test measuring cognitive flexibility, both in the basic condition and when a verbal shadowing protocol is used. The components of the model were systematically lesioned to clarify the specific impact of inner speech on the agent's behaviour. The results indicate that inner speech improves the efficiency of internal representation manipulation. Specifically, it makes the representations linked to specific visual features more disentangled, thus improving the agent's capacity to engage/disengage attention on stimulus features after positive/negative action outcomes. Overall, the model shows how inner speech could improve goal-directed internal manipulation of representations and enhance behavioural 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.