ArticleMemory & cognition2025
A shared temporal window of integration across cognitive control and reinforcement learning paradigms: A correlational study.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive flexibility versus stability via activation-based and weight-based adaptations.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Interactive Influence of Item Competitive Strength and Inhibition Ability on Retrieval-Induced Forgetting.PsyCh journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive control refers to the ability to override prepotent response tendencies to achieve goal-directed behavior. On the other hand, reinforcement learning refers to the learning of actions through feedback and reward. Although cognitive control and reinforcement learning are often viewed as opposing forces in driving behavior, recent theories have emphasized possible similarities in their underling processes. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether a similar time window of integration could be observed during the learning of control on the one hand, and the learning rate in reinforcement learning paradigms on the other. To this end, we performed a correlational analysis on a large public dataset (n = 522) including data from two reinforcement learning tasks, i.e., a probabilistic selection task and a probabilistic Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST), and data from a classic conflict task (i.e., the Stroop task). Results showed expected correlations between the time scale of control indices and learning rate in the probabilistic WCST. Moreover, the learning-rate parameters of the two reinforcement learning tasks did not correlate with each other. Together, these findings suggest a reliance on a shared learning mechanism between these two traditionally distinct domains, while at the same time emphasizing that value updating processes can still be very task-specific. We speculate that updating processes in the Stroop and WCST may be more related because both tasks require task-specific updating of stimulus features (e.g., color, word meaning, pattern, shape), as opposed to stimulus identity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39198341What 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.