ArticleCognitive neurodynamics2022
Attaining the recesses of the cognitive space.
Article in Cognitive neurodynamics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Editorial: Advances in brain dynamics in the healthy and psychiatric disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Existing neuropsychological tests of executive function often manifest a difficulty pinpointing cognitive deficits when these are intermittent and come in the form of omissions. We discuss the hypothesis that two partially interrelated reasons for this failure stem from relative inability of neuropsychological tests to explore the cognitive space and to explicitly take into account strategic and opportunistic resource allocation decisions, and to address the temporal aspects of both behaviour and task-related brain function in data analysis. Criteria for tasks suitable for neuropsychological assessment of executive function, as well as appropriate ways to analyse and interpret observed behavioural data are suggested. It is proposed that experimental tasks should be devised which emphasize typical rather than optimal performance, and that analyses should quantify path-dependent fluctuations in performance levels rather than averaged behaviour. Some implications for experimental neuropsychology are illustrated for the case of planning and problem-solving abilities and with particular reference to cognitive impairment in closed-head injury.
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.