Figure 1
Cognitive flexibility paradigm, adapted from (Armbruster et al., 2012). Participants perform a baseline task (i.e., judging whether the presented digit is odd or even) and respond with their left hand. In task switch trials, participants are asked to perform a different task (i.e., judging whether the presented digit is greater or lower than 5) and now need to respond with the right hand (highlighted in grey). Whether or not participants switch task when two digits are presented depends on the placement of the small dot on the centrally presented cue bar. In ambiguous trials, participants are not unambiguously cued as to whether they should switch or not. Behavior in these trials is used to estimate the rate of spontaneous switching. After a task switch, distractor or ambiguous trial, participants continue to perform the ongoing task.
Figure 2
Affective flexibility paradigm. Participants perform either an affectively neutral task (i.e., judging whether the presented face is male or female; response with left hand) or a task focusing on the affective content of the stimulus images (i.e., judging whether the face shows a positive or negative emotion; response with right hand). The to-be-performed task depends on the location of the stimulus (above vs. below the fixation cross, respectively). After a switch, participants continue to perform the new task (repetition trials) until the next switch trial occurs (highlighted in grey).
Figure 3
Feedback-based flexibility paradigm. Participants either perform the odd/even judgment task or the </>5 task (see Figure 1). Participants need to learn the current rule based on the visual feedback they receive after each trial, and have to adjust their behavior after rule reversals. Probabilistic errors are not shown in the schematic, but involve a negative feedback without an actual task reversal, and serve to increase the unpredictability of task reversals. The dark hand indicates the participant’s button press, while the arrow points toward the correct hand (i.e., rule) to use.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the main parameters of the cognitive and affective flexibility paradigm (N = 100).
| M (SD) | ||
|---|---|---|
| RT | ER | |
| Cognitive flexibility | ||
| baseline trials | 687.96 (87.93) | .04 (.03) |
| task switch trials | 1023.56 (167.04) | .11 (.12) |
| ambiguous trials | 1143.30 (215.17) | .20 (.15) |
| Affective flexibility | ||
| emotion baseline trials | 708.97 (89.31) | .08 (.05) |
| emotion switch trials | 977.78 (160.69) | .16 (.15) |
| gender baseline trials | 652.77 (91.93) | .06 (.06) |
| gender switch trials | 900.00 (140.84) | .07 (.10) |
| (overall) baseline trials | 686.83 (89.38) | .07 (.05) |
| (overall) switch trials | 935.91 (144.15) | .12 (.11) |
| (overall) emotion trials | 758.07 (94.76) | .12 (.09) |
| (overall) gender trials | 701.40 (95.28) | .07 (.07) |
[i] M = mean; SD = standard deviation; RT = response time in millisecond; ER = error rate.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for flexibility indices, sorted by paradigm (N = 100).
| range | M (SD) | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive flexibility | |||
| Switch cost RT | [76.58–724.26] | 335.60 (132.39) | [309.65–361.55] |
| Switch cost ER | [–.10–.45] | .06 (.10) | [.04–.08] |
| Spontaneous switch rate | [.0–1.0] | .47 (.32) | [.40–.53] |
| Affective flexibility | |||
| Switch cost RT (to emotion) | [84.00–624.77] | 268.82 (119.26) | [245.44–292.19] |
| Switch cost RT (to gender) | [51.19–534.61] | 247.23 (96.75) | [228.27–266.20] |
| Switch cost ER (to emotion) | [–.10–.54] | .08 (.12) | [.06–.11] |
| Switch cost ER (to gender) | [–.12–.41] | .01 (.07) | [.00–.03] |
| Feedback-based flexibility | |||
| (mean) reversal errors | [1.00–3.20] | 1.72 (.42) | [1.63–1.80] |
[i] M = mean; SD = standard deviation; RT = response time in millisecond; ER = error rate; CI = 95% confidence interval.
Table 3
Internal Consistencies for flexibility indices obtained from each paradigm.
| N | split-half | CI | rSB | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cognitive | |||||
| Switch cost RT | 94 | .87 | [.83, .91] | .93 | [.91, .95] |
| Switch cost ER | 94 | .23 | [.06, .39] | .37 | [.12, .56] |
| spontaneous switch rate | 83 | .83 | [.75, .89] | ||
| affective | |||||
| Switch cost RT (to emotion task) | 99 | .74 | [.66, .81] | .85 | [.80, .89] |
| Switch cost RT (to gender task) | 99 | .70 | [.60, .78] | .82 | [.75, .88] |
| Switch cost ER (to emotion task) | 99 | .45 | [.32, .58] | .62 | [.49, .73] |
| Switch cost ER (to gender task) | 99 | .28 | [.11, .43] | .43 | [.21, .60] |
| feedback | |||||
| reversal errors (M) | 100 | .55 | [.40, .68] | .71 | [.60, .80] |
[i] M = mean, N = sample size, split-half = uncorrected estimates, CI = 95% confidence interval, rSB = Spearman-Brown corrected estimates.
Table 4
Pre-registered correlations for response time flexibility indices, spontaneous switch rate, and mean number of reversal errors.
| affective | feedback | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Switch cost RT (to emotion task) | Switch cost RT (to gender task) | reversal errors (M) | |
| cognitive | |||
| Switch cost RT | rs = .35 | r = .49 | rs = .17 |
| p < .001a | p < .001a | p = .05b | |
| CI = [.16–.52] | CI = [.32–.63] | ||
| spontaneous switch rate | rs = .03 | rs = .06 | rs = –.12 |
| p = .39d | p = .30d | p = .13e | |
| affective | |||
| Switch cost RT (to emotion task) | rs = –.03 | ||
| p = .39c | |||
| Switch cost RT (to gender task) | rs = .02 | ||
| p = .41c | |||
[i] Due to exclusion criteria, sample size varies across correlations; all correlations are one-sided; a N = 93; b N = 94; c N = 99; d N = 82; e N = 83; RT = reaction time in millisecond; M = mean; CI = 95% confidence interval.
Table 5
Pre-registered correlations for accuracy-based flexibility indices and the mean number of reversal errors.
| affective | feedback | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Switch cost ER (to emotion task) | Switch cost ER (to gender task) | reversal errors (M) | |
| cognitive | |||
| Switch cost ER | rs =.17 | rs = .12 | rs = .01 |
| p = .05a | p = .12a | p = .45b | |
| affective | |||
| Switch cost ER (to emotion task) | rs = .26 | ||
| p < .01c | |||
| CI = [.07–.44] | |||
| Switch cost ER (to gender task) | rs = –.04 | ||
| p = .33c | |||
[i] Due to exclusion criteria, sample size varies across correlations; all correlations are one-sided; a N = 93; b N = 94; c N = 99; M = mean; ER = error rate; CI = 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4
Correlation results for preregistered hypotheses tests. (A, B) Correlations between response time switch costs for the cognitive (y-axis) and affective (x-axis) flexibility paradigm, separated according to the direction of task switch in the affective flexibility paradigm, i.e., (A) for switches from the gender task to the emotion task and (B) for switches from the emotion to the gender task. (C) Correlation between mean number of errors after reversal in the feedback-based flexibility paradigm (y-axis) and error rate switch costs in the affective flexibility paradigm (while switching from the neutral task to the emotion task). RT = response times in millisecond, ER = error rate.
Table 6
Factor Loadings for single factor solution (confirmatory factor analysis).
| Indicator | Beta | SE | Z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Switch cost RT (to emotion) | .72 | .11 | 6.63 | .000 |
| Switch cost RT (to gender) | .97 | .12 | 8.10 | .000 |
| Switch cost RT | .58 | .13 | 4.41 | .000 |
| Spontaneous switch rate | .06 | .11 | .54 | .59 |
| Reversal error (M) | .08 | .12 | .65 | .51 |
[i] All indicators were z-standardized; Beta = standardized factor loading, SE = standard error. M = mean. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin overall sampling adequacy = .60 [.27–.67], Bartlett test, chi2 = 111.99, p < .001, Mardia’s test (skewness, p < .001 & kurtosis, p < .01). Fit indices: comparative fit index = .94, Tucker-Lewis-Index = .89, Root-Mean-Square-Error-of-Approximation = .10, 90% CI = [.00–.19].
Table 7
Factor Loadings for single factor solution (confirmatory factor analysis), exploratory post-hoc analysis.
| Indicator | Beta | SE | Z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Switch cost ER (to emotion) | .83 | .24 | 3.50 | .000 |
| Switch cost ER (to gender) | .18 | .16 | 1.08 | .279 |
| Switch cost ER | .28 | .13 | 2.26 | .02 |
| Spontaneous switch rate | –.03 | .13 | –.23 | .82 |
| Reversal error (M) | .39 | .18 | 2.21 | .03 |
[i] All indicators were z-standardized; Beta = standardized factor loading, SE = standard error. M = mean. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin overall sampling adequacy = .56 [.49–.64], Bartlett test, chi2 = 21.20, p = .02, Mardia’s test (skewness & kurtosis, both p < .001). Fit indices: comparative fit index = 1.0, Tucker-Lewis-Index = 1.73, Root-Mean-Square-Error-of-Approximation = .00, 90% CI = [.00–.10].