Multiple Processes Underlying Dimensional Change Card Sort Performance: A Developmental Electrophysiological Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive flexibility follows a protracted developmental trajectory [Morton, J. B. Understanding genetic, neurophysiological, and experiential influences on the development of executive functioning: The need for developmental models. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2010]. For example, performance and patterns of brain activity associated with the dimensional change card sort (DCCS) show continued age-related changes into early adolescence. According to many theoretical accounts, the DCCS places demands on a single underlying executive process. In the present study, we investigated the possibility that multiple processes unfold within the timeframe of a single DCCS trial through the use of ERPs. Children (n = 40), adolescents (n = 20), and adults (n = 20) performed a modified version of the DCCS with distinct instruction cue- and stimulus-related periods. On any particular trial, the sorting rule either changed (i.e., switch trials) or remained the same (i.e., repeat trials), and the imperative stimulus either embodied conflict (i.e., bivalent stimuli) or did not (i.e., univalent stimuli). Findings were consistent with the hypothesis that multiple distinct executive processes unfold within a single trial. First, for all age groups, rule switching and conflict processing made additive contributions to variability in RT. Second, ERPs time-locked to the instruction cue revealed a late frontal negativity whose amplitude was greater for switch trials relative to repeat trials and that was associated with the magnitude of the behavioral switch cost, whereas ERPs time-locked to the imperative stimulus revealed a fronto-central N2 whose amplitude was greater for bivalent than univalent stimuli and that was associated with the magnitude of the behavioral conflict cost. Finally, switch and conflict-related processes showed distinct developmental trajectories. Taken together, the findings suggest that multiple executive processes underlie DCCS performance and its development. Theoretical implications are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".