Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37770556›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2024

How flexible is cognitive control? (Mouse) tracking conflict adaptation across context similarities.

Hera Potamianou, Donna Bryce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Hera PotamianouDepartment of Psychology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Schleichstrasse 4, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. theodora-ira.potamianou@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8232-1582
Donna BryceDepartment of Psychology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Schleichstrasse 4, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8311-4457

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft BR 6057/4-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exerting cognitive control to remain on-task and reach our goals is a crucial skill, as is the ability to flexibly adapt our responding in rapidly changing environments. The dynamics of cognitive control are typically studied by examining how participants process stimuli that contain competing relevant and irrelevant information in so-called conflict tasks. Adjustments in performance following the experience of conflict, also termed conflict adaptation, suggests a certain degree of flexibility in the deployment of cognitive control. The present study investigated to what extent conflict adaptation effects transfer across trials of the same and different tasks in three online mouse-tracking experiments. Adaptations of the Simon and Stroop tasks were combined to create different levels of context similarity between the paired tasks. Based on a previous review (Braem et al., Frontiers in Psychology 5:1-13, 2014), across-task conflict adaptation was expected only in the most and least similar contexts. In contrast to our hypothesis, conflict adaptation effects were observed in at least one measure in all three experiments. To our surprise, task order also seemed to impact the size of across-task conflict adaptation effects. The heterogeneity in the current results highlight the importance of using sensitive measurement tools to evaluate conflict adaptation and suggest that the occurrence of across-task conflict adaptation may be conditional on more than just shared relevant and irrelevant dimensions.

Indexed as

CognitionConflict, PsychologicalHumansReaction TimeStroop Test

Identifiers

PMID37770556
PMCPMC10858099

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.