Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38439938›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2024

Measuring cognitive flexibility: A brief review of neuropsychological, self-report, and neuroscientific approaches.

Kelly Hohl, Sanda Dolcos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Does neurodevelopmental load predict cognitive flexibility?Schizophrenia research. Cognition · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Misophonia symptom severity is linked to impaired flexibility and heightened rumination.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Kelly HohlPsychology Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Sanda DolcosPsychology Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive flexibility involves dynamic processes that allow adaptation of our thinking and behavior in response to changing contextual demands. Despite a large consensus about its beneficial effects, cognitive flexibility is still poorly understood. In this mini review, we examined the main conceptualizations and approaches for assessing cognitive flexibility: (1) neuropsychological tasks, (2) self-report questionnaires, and (3) neuroscientific approaches. The reviewed evidence shows that the definition and assessment of cognitive flexibility are not unified within the field and suggests that a more consensual and consistent conceptualization and operationalization of this important concept is needed. We propose that an integrative behavior-brain-context approach can help advance our understanding of cognitive flexibility.

Indexed as

assessmentbrain-behaviorcognitive flexibilityinterventionsresilience

Identifiers

PMID38439938
PMCPMC10910035

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.