Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41981361›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Steering through task uncertainty: Evidence for activation modulation over dynamic binding.

Mengqiao Chai, Senne Braem

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Mengqiao ChaiDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. chaimengqiao@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9756-7421
Senne BraemDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Living in a fast-changing environment requires a dynamic updating of task representations. Previous research has shown that people can adaptively prepare and unprepare for a given task, when the likelihood of a task switch varied in time during preparation. However, the underlying mechanism of this process remains unclear. We proposed two potential mechanisms that could support this flexible task control process: people may either downregulate the current task representation (i.e., the activation modulation account) or try to unbind the task components (i.e., the dynamic (un)binding hypothesis) when expecting a task switch. To distinguish between these mechanisms, we devised a novel paradigm in which, during task preparation, the to-be-performed task could suddenly switch to a new one. Critically, this switch could be either partial (changing only one of the two task components) or complete. We predicted that, if activation modulation were the dominant mechanism, participants would show stronger inhibition when expecting a complete switch compared with a partial one. Conversely, if people relied mostly on dynamic (un)binding, participants would only need to unbind when expecting a partial switch. Our results showed that participants inhibited task representations more with increasing probability of a complete, as opposed to a partial, switch. This finding supports an activation modulation account, suggesting that people primarily regulate the activation strength of task representations rather than the binding strength between their task components.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionInhibition, PsychologicalPsychomotor PerformanceAdultCognitive FlexibilityFemaleHumansMaleUncertaintyYoung AdultCompositionalityTask preparationTask representationUncertainty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.