Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39830226›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2025

It's Hard to Prepare for Task Novelty: Cueing the Novelty of Upcoming Tasks Does Not Facilitate Task Performance.

Mengqiao Chai, Ana F Palenciano, Ravi Mill, Michael W Cole, Senne Braem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 2025. 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

5 authors.

Mengqiao ChaiDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9756-7421
Ana F PalencianoMind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, University of Granada, 18011, Granada, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9963-7524
Ravi MillCenter for Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9249-8744
Michael W ColeCenter for Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4329-438X
Senne BraemDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2619-8225

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapidly learning new tasks, such as using new technology or playing a new game, is ubiquitous in our daily lives. Previous studies suggest that our brain relies on different networks for rapid task learning versus retrieving known tasks from memory, and behavioral studies have shown that novel versus practiced tasks may rely on different task configuration processes. Here, we investigated whether explicitly informing about the novelty of an incoming task would help participants prepare for different task configuration processes, such as pre-adjusting working memory gating functions. We hypothesized that if different task configuration processes can be prepared for, a pre-cue informing about the novelty of the upcoming task should lead to better task performance. Across four experiments, participants were first trained on a subset of tasks, followed by a test session in which pre-cues were provided in some blocks but not others. After comparing task performance between cued and uncued blocks, our results provided no evidence supporting the benefit of cueing for both practiced and novel tasks, suggesting that people cannot prepare for different task configuration processes in the absence of concrete task information.

Indexed as

Cognitive ControlDecision makingExecutive functionsLearning

Identifiers

PMID39830226
PMCPMC11740709

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.