ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2022
The influence of context representations on cognitive control states.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring foot-based SNARC effect by hand posture: insights from embodied cognition.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Cognitive control and metacognitive awareness: do they shape academic achievement in university students?Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Lateral prefrontal theta oscillations causally drive a computational mechanism underlying conflict expectation and adaptation.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive control operates via two distinct mechanisms, proactive and reactive control. These control states are engaged differentially, depending on a number of within-subject factors, but also between-group variables. While research has begun to explore if shifts in control can be experimentally modulated, little is known about whether context impacts which control state is utilized. Thus, we test if contextual factors temporarily bias the use of a particular control state long enough to impact performance on a subsequent task. Our methodology involves two parts: first participants are exposed to a context manipulation designed to promote proactive or reactive processing through amount or availability of advanced preparation within a task-switching paradigm. Then, they complete an AX-CPT task, where we assess immediate transfer on preferential adoption of one control mode over another. We present results from a Pilot Study that revealed anecdotal evidence of proactive versus reactive processing for a context manipulation using long and short preparation times. We also present data from a follow-up Registered Experiment that implements a context manipulation using long or no preparation times to assess if a more extreme context leads to pronounced differences on AX-CPT performance. Together, the results suggest that contextual representations do not impact the engagement of a particular control state, but rather, there is a general preference for the engagement of proactive control.
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.