Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36072103›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2022

Binding Error-Induced Control States.

Anna Foerster, Moritz Schiltenwolf, David Dignath, Roland Pfister

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Anna FoersterUniversity of Würzburg, DE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8520-4672
Moritz SchiltenwolfUniversity of Tübingen, DE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6539-5512
David DignathUniversity of Tübingen, DE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1092-8019
Roland PfisterUniversity of Würzburg, DE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4429-1052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Binding and retrieval of stimulus features, response features, and their attentional weighting tune cognitive processing to situational demands. The two mechanisms promote successful actions, especially in situations in which such actions depend on controlled processing. Here we explored binding and retrieval of attentional control states that follow from erroneous actions. By definition, such errors are characterized by insufficient cognitive control but at the same time, error detection has been shown to trigger corresponding adjustments to prevent future failures. We reanalyzed existing datasets and conducted a novel experiment to investigate whether error-induced control states become bound to task-relevant stimuli. Results point towards a binding and retrieval of error-induced control states; however, the effect appears to be less reliable than for binding and retrieval of specific stimulus and response features. We discuss potential implications and alternative interpretations in terms of a mediating impact of error-induced control.

Indexed as

binding and retrievalcognitive controlerror processing

Identifiers

PMID36072103
PMCPMC9400645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.