ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2021
Toward a formal theory of proactivity.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Music activities that most elicit interest and pleasure among older people with mild-to-moderate dementia: a qualitative multiple-case study in Italy.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Poor maternal mental health is associated with a low degree of proactive control in refugee children.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Coordinates Contextual Mental Imagery for Single-Beat Manipulation during Rhythmic Sensorimotor Synchronization.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Humans do not avoid reactively implementing cognitive control.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2024Article
- The relation between implicit statistical learning and proactivity as revealed by EEG.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Meta-control: From psychology to computational neuroscience.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Beyond merely reacting to their environment and impulses, people have the remarkable capacity to proactively set and pursue their own goals. The extent to which they leverage this capacity varies widely across people and situations. The goal of this article is to propose and evaluate a model of proactivity and reactivity. We proceed in three steps. First, we model proactivity in a widely used cognitive control task known as the AX Continuous Performance Task (AX-CPT). Our theory formalizes an important aspect of proactivity as meta-control over proactive and reactive control. Second, we perform a quantitative model comparison to identify the number and nature of meta-control decisions that are involved in the regulation of proactive behavior. Our findings suggest that individual differences in proactivity are governed by two independent meta-control decisions, namely deciding whether to set an intention for what to do in a future situation and deciding whether to recall one's intentions when the situation occurs. Third, we test the assumptions and qualitative predictions of the winning model against data from numerous experiments varying the incentives, cognitive load, and statistical structure of the task. Our results suggest that proactivity can be understood in terms of computational models of meta-control. Future work will extend our models from proactive control in the AX-CPT to proactive goal creation and goal pursuit in the real world.
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.