ArticleComputational brain & behavior2026
Joint Cognitive Models Reveal Sources of Robust Individual Differences in Conflict Processing.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 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.
- An illustrative guide to expressing cognitive theories using evidence accumulation modelling.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- The diffusion model's drift rate parameter primarily reflects efficiency, rather than speed, of evidence accumulation.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Experimental manipulations in conflict tasks, e.g., the Stroop, Flanker, and Simon tasks, lead to systematically poorer performance in "incongruent" conditions that feature stimuli that contradict task goals. However, substantial recent debate surrounds whether individual differences in conflict task behavior reflect reliable, trait-like mechanistic processes. Much prior work uses difference scores, contrasting performance between incongruent and congruent trials to index conflict suppression ability, but recent work demonstrates these scores exhibit poor psychometric properties. Formal cognitive process models suggest that individual differences in conflict suppression are driven by task-general processes, as opposed to processes specialized for conflict. However, this prior work separately models cognitive process parameters and their covariation, which fails to adequately account for measurement error. Here, we model distinct mechanisms of conflict task performance and their covariance simultaneously using hierarchical Bayesian joint modeling methods for the first time which improves individual estimation and accounts for error. We fit the conflict linear ballistic accumulator model (LBA) to two large datasets containing multiple conflict tasks and test-retest sessions, and an additional large dataset containing a conflict task and simple perceptual decision-making task. First, within conflict tasks, we found moderate test-retest reliability for both conflict-specific processing mechanisms, and, to a larger degree, task-general mechanisms. Second, task-general, but not conflict-specific, mechanisms were correlated across different conflict tasks. Third, these task-general mechanisms were correlated between conflict tasks and a simple decision-making task without conflict suppression demands. Overall, we found robust individual differences in computational mechanisms underlying general decision-making, but not mechanisms specific to conflict processing.
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.