ArticleMemory & cognition2026
People are sensitive to environmental predictability when engaging cognitive control.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People flexibly engage either proactive or reactive control to achieve goals in dynamic environments. However, it remains unclear how specific environmental factors determine when proactive control is most effectively used. Across two experiments, this study investigated how environmental predictability influences proactive control. We employed a self-paced task-switching paradigm in which adult participants triggered the target when they felt ready to respond to it and manipulated how reliably contextual cue information predicted the task rule. In Experiment 1, a fully predictable environment (100% cue reliability) led to longer preparation times, reflecting spontaneous proactive preparation, faster responses, and reduced switch costs compared with an unpredictable environment (50% reliability), indicating adaptive engagement of proactive control based on cue reliability. Experiment 2 further examined the relations between cue reliability and proactive control by comparing a more reliable condition (85% reliable cues) to a less reliable condition (65% reliable cues). Findings revealed that participants spent more time preparing under 85% reliability and showed larger performance differences between "matched" (cue accurately predicting the task) and "unmatched" trials. These results reinforce the view that adults can detect subtle differences in cue reliability and adjust their proactive control accordingly. Finally, an integration of the findings from Experiments 1 and 2 suggests that two thresholds of cue reliability govern both the decision to engage and the effectiveness of cognitive control when adults modulate their proactive control based on environmental predictability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42050223What 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.