Stress and Cognitive Flexibility: Cortisol Increases Are Associated with Enhanced Updating but Impaired Switching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute stress has frequently been shown to impair cognitive flexibility. Most studies have examined the effect of stress on cognitive flexibility by measuring how stress changes performance in paradigms that require participants to switch between different task demands. These processes typically implicate pFC function, a region known to be impaired by stress. However, cognitive flexibility is a multifaceted construct. Another dimension of flexibility, updating to incorporate relevant information, involves the dorsal striatum. Function in this region has been shown to be enhanced by stress. Using a within-subject design, we tested whether updating flexibility in a DMS task would be enhanced by an acute stress manipulation (cold pressor task). Participants' cortisol response to stress positively correlated with a relative increase in accuracy on updating flexibility (compared with trials with no working memory interference). In contrast, in line with earlier studies, cortisol responses correlated with worse performance when switching between trials with different task demands. These results demonstrate that stress-related increases in cortisol are associated with both increases and decreases in cognitive flexibility, depending on task demands.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".