ArticleScientific reports2026
Modeling metacognition and executive functions in the metacognitive wisconsin card sorting test using the neuropsychological digital-twin method.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Bridging psychiatric and educational metacognition: a perspective on insight and learning.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Assessing executive functions and metacognition: translational potential of the Metacognitive Wisconsin Card Sorting Test for developmental neuropsychology.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Review
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
Executive functions rely on goal-directed manipulation of representations, while metacognition reflects the evaluation and control of one’s own representations. Several studies have examined these processes separately, but none formalise the neuro-representational computations underlying their interaction during goal-directed behaviour. This gap prevents comprehensive frameworks and extended model-based neuropsychological investigations. Here we address these issues by introducing a neuropsychological digital-twin method - a translational modelling framework that integrates clinical and experimental data, theoretical formalisation, and computational modelling for neuropsychological profiling and prediction. We formalised the three-component theory of metacognitive and flexible goal-directed cognition - grounded in theoretical and neuroscientific literature - and developed a neuro-inspired computational model tested with a standard neuropsychological task (Metacognitive Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Meta-WCST). We further corroborated the proposal by reproducing experimental data from healthy controls and psychiatric populations (Anorexia Nervosa and Schizophrenia). Finally, we generated three digital-twins - computational models fitted to human data and reproducing behavioural and neuro-cognitive features - for neuropsychological profiling and intervention prediction. Our results support an integrated framework of executive functions and metacognition in healthy and pathological goal-directed behaviour and provide the first theory-based computational model of the Meta-WCST. They also reveal that Anorexia Nervosa and Schizophrenia share hidden cognitive and metacognitive similarities (motivational impairment and over-confidence) alongside differences (perseveration and poor self-improvement in the former; distraction and poor self-evaluation in the latter). Consistently, simulations predict differential benefits from metacognitive-based psychotherapy, highlighting the importance of personalised interventions. Finally, our contributions have implications for cognitive science (e.g., consciousness studies) and emerging technologies (digital-twin healthcare and autonomous robotics).
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.