Author:
Steinke Alexander,Lange Florian,Kopp Bruno
Abstract
AbstractThe Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) is considered a gold standard for the assessment of cognitive flexibility. On the WCST, repeating a sorting category following negative feedback is typically treated as indicating reduced cognitive flexibility. Therefore such responses are referred to as ‘perseveration’ errors. Recent research suggests that the propensity for perseveration errors is modulated by response demands: They occur less frequently when their commitment repeats the previously executed response. Here, we propose parallel reinforcement-learning models of card sorting performance, which assume that card sorting performance can be conceptualized as resulting from model-free reinforcement learning at the level of responses that occurs in parallel with model-based reinforcement learning at the categorical level. We compared parallel reinforcement-learning models with purely model-based reinforcement learning, and with the state-of-the-art attentional-updating model. We analyzed data from 375 participants who completed a computerized WCST. Parallel reinforcement-learning models showed best predictive accuracies for the majority of participants. Only parallel reinforcement-learning models accounted for the modulation of perseveration propensity by response demands. In conclusion, parallel reinforcement-learning models provide a new theoretical perspective on card sorting and it offers a suitable framework for discerning individual differences in latent processes that subserve behavioral flexibility.
Funder
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
Petermax-Müller-Foundation, Hannover, Germany
Projekt DEAL
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference116 articles.
1. Diamond, A. Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135–168 (2013).
2. Braem, S. & Egner, T. Getting a grip on cognitive flexibility. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27, 470–476 (2018).
3. Miyake, A. et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex ‘frontal lobe’ tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 41, 49–100 (2000).
4. Badre, D. & Wagner, A. D. Computational and neurobiological mechanisms underlying cognitive flexibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 7186–7191 (2006).
5. Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A. & Hsieh, S. Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In Attention and Performance Series. Attention and Performance 15: Conscious and Nonconscious Information Processing (eds Umiltà, C. & Moscovitch, M.) 421–452 (MIT Press, London, 1994).
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献