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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“An alternative proposal is that the unity component reflects individual differences in the ability to actively maintain goals and use those goals to bias ongoing processing [29, 97, 167].”
From The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2022) · cites this paper as [167]
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
The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population
Radloff, L. S. (1977) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 · Cited by 53,267
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Stroop, J. R. (1935) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054651 · Cited by 18,622
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Self-citationAn Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 · Cited by 8,388
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624 · Cited by 7,351
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721411429458 · Cited by 3,944
Self-citationWechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III
Ryan, J. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2001) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1185-4_2 · Cited by 3,680
Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207 · Cited by 3,170
Monsell, S. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00028-7 · Cited by 2,984
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023 · Cited by 1,834
Self-citationThe role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function
Friedman, N. P., & Robbins, T. W. (2022) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-021-01132-0 · Cited by 1,737
“An alternative proposal is that the unity component reflects individual differences in the ability to actively maintain goals and use those goals to bias ongoing processing [29, 97, 167].”
BackgroundSelf-citationWhat limits working memory capacity?
Oberauer, K., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000046 · Cited by 416
Dopamine Does Double Duty in Motivating Cognitive Effort
Westbrook, A., & Braver, T. S. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.029 · Cited by 331
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Altamirano, L. J., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., Rhea, S. A., & Hewitt, J. K. (2016) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000075 · Cited by 294
Self-citation
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.
- Venue
- Neuropsychologia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 62
- Pages
- 375-389
- ISSN
- 0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
