CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A neural network model of individual differences in task switching abilities

Open access
Herd, Seth A., O׳Reilly, Randall C., Hazy, Tom E., Chatham, Christopher H., Brant, Angela M., Friedman, Naomi P.·2014·Neuropsychologia
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.04.014PMC PMC4167201
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We use a biologically grounded neural network model to investigate the brain mechanisms underlying individual differences specific to the selection and instantiation of representations that exert cognitive control in task switching. Existing computational models of task switching do not focus on individual differences and so cannot explain why task switching abilities are separable from other executive function (EF) abilities (such as response inhibition). We explore hypotheses regarding neural mechanisms underlying the "Shifting-Specific" and "Common EF" components of EF proposed in the Unity/Diversity model (Miyake & Friedman, 2012) and similar components in related theoretical frameworks. We do so by adapting a well-developed neural network model of working memory (Prefrontal cortex, Basal ganglia Working Memory or PBWM; Hazy, Frank, & O'Reilly, 2007) to task switching and the Stroop task, and comparing its behavior on those tasks under a variety of individual difference manipulations. Results are consistent with the hypotheses that variation specific to task switching (i.e., Shifting-Specific) may be related to uncontrolled, automatic persistence of goal representations, whereas variation general to multiple EFs (i.e., Common EF) may be related to the strength of PFC representations and their effect on processing in the remainder of the cognitive system. Moreover, increasing signal to noise ratio in PFC, theoretically tied to levels of tonic dopamine and a genetic polymorphism in the COMT gene, reduced Stroop interference but increased switch costs. This stability-flexibility tradeoff provides an explanation for why these two EF components sometimes show opposing correlations with other variables such as attention problems and self-restraint.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.04.014

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 96 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–127 of 127

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Herd, S. A., O׳Reilly, R. C., Hazy, T. E., Chatham, C. H., Brant, A. M., & Friedman, N. P.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Friedman, Naomi P.
ORCID
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
62
Pages
375-389
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.04.014
PMC
PMC4167201
OpenAlex
W2041159118
Cited by
128
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
task switching, individual differences, cognitive control, executive function, prefrontal cortex, Stroop task, switch costs, signal-to-noise ratio, dopamine, COMT gene polymorphism, response inhibition
MeSH terms
Attention, Brain, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Neurological, Reaction Time, Executive Function, Stroop Test

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review