ArticleNature communications2026
Nonergodicity and Simpson's paradox in neurocognitive dynamics of cognitive control.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Group-to-individual generalizability and individual-level inferences in cognitive neuroscience.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nonergodicity and Simpson's paradox present significant, yet underappreciated challenges in cognitive neuroscience. Leveraging brain imaging and behavioral data from over 4000 individuals and a Bayesian computational model of cognitive dynamics, we investigated brain-behavior relationships underlying cognitive control at both between-subjects and within-subjects levels. Strikingly, brain-behavior associations reversed across levels of analysis, revealing pervasive nonergodicity. Within-subjects analysis uncovered dissociated neural representations of reactive and proactive control and revealed that individuals who adaptively versus maladaptively regulated cognitive control exhibited distinct brain-behavior associations. Our findings demonstrate that between-subjects analyses can fundamentally mischaracterize within-individuals mechanisms, as group-level patterns not only disagreed with individual-level patterns but often reversed them. This work highlights the necessity of distinguishing between-subjects and within-subjects inferences in neuroscience, with implications for understanding cognitive mechanisms and designing personalized interventions.
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.