Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34045720›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2021

A unified online test battery for cognitive impulsivity reveals relationships with real-world impulsive behaviours.

Antonio Verdejo-Garcia, Jeggan Tiego, Naomi Kakoschke, Neda Moskovsky, Katharina Voigt, Alexandra Anderson, Julia Koutoulogenis, Dan I Lubman, Mark A Bellgrove

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Impulsivity is a stable, measurable, and predictive psychological trait.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Improving the Reliability of Cognitive Task Measures: A Narrative Review.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2023
    Review
  12. Searching for biomarkers in the fluidity of mental ill-health.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2023
    Article
  13. Children's eating behaviours and related constructs: conceptual and theoretical foundations and their implications.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Do Rating and Task Measures of Control Abilities Assess the Same Thing?Current directions in psychological science · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Antonio Verdejo-GarciaSchool of Psychological Sciences and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. antonio.verdejo@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8874-9339
Jeggan TiegoSchool of Psychological Sciences and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7835-6398
Naomi KakoschkeSchool of Psychological Sciences and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7394-5668
Neda MoskovskySchool of Psychological Sciences and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Katharina VoigtSchool of Psychological Sciences and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1027-9223
Alexandra AndersonSchool of Psychological Sciences and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9976-0725
Julia KoutoulogenisSchool of Psychological Sciences and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2483-9778
Dan I LubmanTurning Point, Eastern Health and Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6747-1937
Mark A BellgroveSchool of Psychological Sciences and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0186-8349

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Impulsive behaviours are a major contributor to the global burden of disease, but existing measures of cognitive impulsivity have suboptimal reliability and validity. Here, we introduce the Cognitive Impulsivity Suite, comprising three computerized/online tasks using a gamified interface. We conceptualize rapid-response impulsive behaviours (disinhibition) as arising from the failure of three distinct cognitive mechanisms: attentional control, information gathering and monitoring/shifting. We demonstrate the construct and criterion validity of the Cognitive Impulsivity Suite in an online community sample (N = 1,056), show test-retest reliability and between-subjects variability in a face-to-face community sample (N = 63), and replicate the results in a community and clinical sample (N = 578). The results support the theoretical architecture of the attentional control, information gathering and monitoring/shifting constructs. The Cognitive Impulsivity Suite demonstrated incremental criterion validity for prediction of real-world, addiction-related problems and is a promising tool for large-scale research on cognitive impulsivity.

Indexed as

CognitionImpulsive BehaviorPsychological TestsAdultFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsVideo Games

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.