Mapping common and distinct brain correlates among cognitive flexibility tasks: concordant evidence from meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive flexibility allows individuals to switch between different tasks, strategies, or ideas; an ability that is important for everyday life. The Wisconsin card sorting test (WCST) and task switching paradigm (TSP) are popular measures of cognitive flexibility. Although both tasks require switching, the TSP requires participants to memorize switching rules and retrieve them when they view a cue (rule-retrieval), whereas the classic WCST requires participants to discover the switching rule via trial-and-error (rule-discovery). Many functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have examined brain responses to these tasks. Extant meta-analyses show concordance in activation in a widespread set of areas including frontal, parietal, and cingulate cortices. Critically, past meta-analyses have not specifically examined brain correlates associated with rule derivation (i.e., rule-discovery vs. rule-retrieval) in cognitive flexibility tasks. We examine for the first time common and distinct concordance in brain responses to rule-discovery (i.e., WCST) and rule-retrieval (i.e., TSP), as well as TSP subtypes using quantitative meta-analyses. We analyzed data from 69 eligible articles with a total of 1617 young-adult participants. Conjunction results show concordance in common fronto-parietal areas predominantly in the left hemisphere. Contrast analyses show that rule-discovery required increased involvement in multiple cortical and subcortical regions such as frontopolar (Brodmann Area 10), parietal, insular cortex, thalamus and caudate nucleus predominantly in the right hemisphere. No significant differences in concordance were observed among the three, task switching paradigm sub-types. We propose a neuroanatomical model of cognitive flexibility and discuss theoretical and practical applications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".