Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36246581›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2022

Computational Investigations of Learning and Synchronization in Cognitive Control.

Pieter Huycke, Elise Lesage, C Nico Boehler, Tom Verguts

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Pieter HuyckeDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, BE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8156-4419
Elise LesageDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, BE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5517-6965
C Nico BoehlerDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, BE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5963-2780
Tom VergutsDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, BE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7783-4754

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complex cognition requires binding together of stimulus, action, and other features, across different time scales. Several implementations of such binding have been proposed in the literature, most prominently synaptic binding (learning) and synchronization. Biologically plausible accounts of how these different types of binding interact in the human brain are still lacking. To this end, we adopt a computational approach to investigate the impact of learning and synchronization on both behavioral (reaction time, error rate) and neural (θ power) measures. We train four models varying in their ability to learn and synchronize for an extended period of time on three seminal action control paradigms varying in difficulty. Learning, but not synchronization, proved essential for behavioral improvement. Synchronization however boosts performance of difficult tasks, avoiding the computational pitfalls of catastrophic interference. At the neural level, θ power decreases with practice but increases with task difficulty. Our simulation results bring new insights in how different types of binding interact in different types of tasks, and how this is translated in both behavioral and neural metrics.

Indexed as

bindingcognitive controlLearningsynchronization

Identifiers

PMID36246581
PMCPMC9524294

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.