Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740366›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2026

Learning and Using Different Task Rule Updating Strategies Require Extensive Practice.

Shengjie Xu, Tanya Wen, Tobias Egner, Tom Verguts, Senne Braem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shengjie XuDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4604-372X
Tobias EgnerDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7956-3241
Tom VergutsDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7783-4754
Senne BraemDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2619-8225

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek G010319NHORIZON EUROPE European Research Council 852570
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People adjust how fast they update task rules, depending on the volatility of their environment, by regulating cognitive control accordingly. We investigated whether this adaptation is primarily driven by recently experienced volatility in task demands, or can also be shaped by learned environmental knowledge indicating expected levels of volatility. To this end, we trained participants on a Wisconsin Card Sorting Test task where different environments required different speeds of task rule updating. We demonstrate that, initially, participants adopted task rule updating strategies depending on the most recently experienced levels of volatility and feedback (Experiment 1). However, after extensive (4 days) training (Experiment 2), participants updated task rules using strategies based on developed environmental knowledge. We also show how participants fine-tuned their task rule updating strategies over learning. In sum, our findings provide important insights into how humans update task rules using different strategies and highlight the importance of multiday training in developing environmental knowledge for the regulation of cognitive control.

Indexed as

CognitionExecutive FunctionLearningPractice, PsychologicalAdultCognitive FlexibilityFemaleHumansMaleWisconsin Card Sorting TestYoung AdultCognitive controlCognitive flexibilityContextMultiday trainingReinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID42740366
PMCPMC13575300

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.