ArticlePsychological research2026
Cognitive control capacity as a selective capacity constraint across cognitive control processes: a multimethod examination using network analysis and LASSO regression.
Article in Psychological research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive control is characterized by severe capacity limitations, yet it remains unclear whether performance constraints across different cognitive control processes reflect independent limitations or shared capacity-related constraints. To investigate this question, we adopted an individual-differences approach and multimethod analyses to examine how cognitive control capacity (CCC), defined as the maximum rate at which the cognitive control system can successfully process task-relevant information, is associated with performance across multiple cognitive-control processes. A sample of 197 healthy adults completed a modified backward-masking majority function task (MFTM-A) that adaptively estimated each participant's exposure-time threshold at a fixed information load, from which CCC was derived (bits per second). These participants also completed a multi-component battery assessing domain-specific functions including working memory (N-back), inhibition (Go/No-Go, Stop-Signal), flexibility (task switching), proactive/reactive control (AX-CPT) and attentional functions (alerting, orienting and conflict). Results showed that CCC was significantly associated with several cognitive-control measures: higher CCC was associated with greater N-back accuracy, better AX-CPT discriminability, higher No-Go accuracy, and reduced switch costs. Network analysis indicated that proactive control and response inhibition occupied the most central positions in the network, whereas CCC showed selective connections with high-load control measures. A least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression identified 3-back accuracy as the most robust unique predictor of CCC. These findings suggest that CCC reflects a selective throughput-related constraint that is closely tied to high-load working memory updating and extends to selected control processes requiring sustained and flexible information processing. Methodologically, this study illustrates how network analysis and sparsity-based modelling can be combined to clarify both the organization of cognitive-control measures and the behavioral predictors of CCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42905174What 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.