Cognitive Flexibility: How We Adapt to Changing Rules

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Attention, Perception & Cognitive Control · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Cognitive flexibility is the capacity to revise a currently useful mental set when goals, instructions, evidence, or environmental demands change. It allows a person to shift from one classification rule to another, consider an alternative interpretation, and select behavior appropriate to the new situation. In experimental psychology, its most directly studied components are set shifting and task switching: changing which rule or task governs a response. The construct belongs to the broader family of executive functions that support goal-directed thought and action. Diamond (2013); Dajani and Uddin (2015).

Cognitive flexibility matters because yesterday's successful response can become today's error. A person sorting cards by color may need to start sorting by shape; a scientist may need to revise a hypothesis when observations contradict it; a driver may have to abandon a familiar route when road conditions change. These situations share a requirement to update the currently relevant rule, although they differ enormously in knowledge, emotion, stakes, and measurement. Laboratory flexibility is therefore a carefully operationalized aspect of adaptive cognition, rather than a single universal score for how well a person handles life.

What Is Cognitive Flexibility in Psychology?

The psychological definition centers on an adjustment of mental representations or response rules in relation to changing demands. A task set is the currently active configuration of instructions, relevant stimulus features, stimulus-response mappings, and response priorities. When the task changes, this configuration must be updated or replaced. Cognitive flexibility refers to successful adaptation across such changes, taking account of accuracy, speed, and the context in which switching occurs. Monsell (2003); Kiesel et al. (2010).

Researchers also use the terms mental flexibility, set shifting, and cognitive shifting. These expressions overlap, but their operational meaning depends on the experiment. Set shifting often describes moving between sorting categories, stimulus dimensions, or rules. Task switching often refers to responding to explicitly cued or predictably alternating tasks while researchers measure response times and errors. Flexible thinking can mean reframing a problem or entertaining several solutions, which requires additional reasoning, semantic knowledge, and sometimes creativity. A paper reporting a smaller switch cost therefore establishes performance on a particular switching paradigm, not necessarily broad creative or interpersonal adaptability.

A change can be externally signaled, discovered through negative feedback, or selected voluntarily. These distinctions matter. An arrow or color cue that announces a new task places different demands on the participant than discovering that a previously rewarded sorting rule has stopped working. A person may adapt quickly when the new rule is obvious yet struggle when the change itself must be inferred. The experimental conditions specify what kind of flexibility has been measured.

Why Flexible Cognition Requires Cognitive Control

Goal-directed behavior depends on maintaining the presently relevant rule while remaining able to revise it. Working memory helps hold instructions and relevant information accessible; inhibitory control helps reduce interference from an outdated or competing response; and shifting processes help select and implement another task configuration. These functions cooperate, but they are not interchangeable. Miyake et al. (2000) identified correlated yet distinguishable components of shifting, updating, and inhibition in a latent-variable analysis. Later research developed the unity-and-diversity account: executive-function tasks share common control demands while retaining partly separable influences. Friedman and Miyake (2017).

Consider a participant who must press one key when a digit is odd and another when it is even, but sometimes must ignore parity and judge whether the digit is above or below five. Efficient behavior requires recognizing the current cue, retrieving the appropriate rule, mapping the stimulus to an answer, and suppressing interference from the other rule. A wrong answer may reflect confusion about the cue, lingering activation of the previous task, uncertain response mapping, or an impulsive response. Those causes are scientifically different even though each produces a mistake on a switch trial.

The unity-and-diversity framework also guards against interpreting flexibility as a self-contained module. A complex real-world transition requires perception, memory, learning, motivation, and decisions about costs and goals. Flexibility is one constituent of adaptive control, whose contribution can be analyzed when investigators carefully isolate the shifting demand.

Updating a Rule and Resolving Competition

One influential explanation describes task switching as reconfiguration: the control system prepares the relevant task set, adjusts attention to the correct stimulus features, and establishes the needed response rules. Another emphasizes interference and task-set inertia, in which previously active rules continue to influence performance. Reviews conclude that both preparation and carryover effects contribute, although their balance depends on the task design. Rogers and Monsell (1995); Kiesel et al. (2010).

Preparation before a task begins can reduce the cost of switching, particularly when the upcoming rule is clearly cued. It does not reliably eliminate the cost, because certain operations may depend on the appearance of the actual stimulus and because prior task configurations can remain active. Experimental results support a multicomponent process rather than a simple mental on/off switch.

Stability and Flexibility as Coordinated Requirements

Maintaining an effective rule is itself a cognitive achievement. Switching constantly can waste time, disrupt learning, or introduce errors; persisting with an outdated rule can be equally costly. Adaptive control therefore requires sensitivity to whether the environment has genuinely changed. A task that rewards rapid changes favors quick reconfiguration, whereas a task with stable goals favors sustained control. The optimal balance depends on the frequency, predictability, and consequences of change.

A useful everyday example is editing a manuscript. A writer may need to preserve an argument across several paragraphs, then change from conceptual revision to proofreading. Efficient work benefits from maintaining one standard long enough to complete it and switching at a meaningful boundary. The example illustrates demands on cognitive control; it is not evidence that any particular writing routine will permanently increase a person's underlying flexibility.

Classic Experiments That Shaped the Field

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Learning When the Rule Changes

In the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, participants match cards by features such as color, shape, or number. Feedback indicates whether a choice was correct; after a sequence of correct responses, the governing classification principle changes without the participant being directly told the new rule. The test makes persistence and adaptation visible. Continuing to sort according to the old principle despite corrective feedback is commonly counted as a perseverative response or error.

This paradigm has a long history in neuropsychological research. Its major appeal is that it combines hypothesis testing, feedback-based learning, maintenance of a rule, and a response to changed contingencies. Those same features also complicate interpretation: performance depends on comprehension of instructions, reasoning, processing speed, working memory, error monitoring, and other abilities. A meta-analysis examining relations between Wisconsin Card Sorting scores and intelligence found low-to-moderate associations and called for stronger discriminant validation of executive-function measures. Kopp et al. (2019).

Test reliability must also be evaluated by the exact score and procedure. A 2024 meta-analysis reported that test-retest estimates for several commonly analyzed Wisconsin Card Sorting indicators were often in the approximate .30–.70 range, reinforcing the need to interpret individual scores in context rather than treat the name of the test as a guarantee of stable measurement. Al Kharusi et al. (2024). Scores can help characterize performance under defined conditions, but a low score alone does not identify a clinical disorder or establish the cause of an individual's difficulties.

Predictable Task Switching and the Switch-Cost Effect

Rogers and Monsell's influential experiments asked participants to alternate among simple classifications. Even when the pattern of task alternation was predictable, responses immediately after a switch tended to be slower than responses made under a continuing task. Providing time to prepare reduced some of the delay while leaving a residual cost. Rogers and Monsell (1995).

The basic switch-cost comparison subtracts average response time on repeat trials from average response time on switch trials within a mixed-task setting. A positive value indicates slower responding on switch trials under the tested conditions. Researchers usually inspect error rates as well, because faster responses achieved through more guessing are not the same as more effective control. The meaning of a cost also depends on cue timing, stimulus characteristics, practice, response mappings, and the exact way repeat trials are defined.

Switch cost is a laboratory effect, not an all-purpose measurement of someone's ability to change careers, adjust beliefs, or manage emotional setbacks. It provides a tractable way to investigate certain operations that are also relevant to everyday adaptability.

Dimensional Change Card Sort in Childhood

The Dimensional Change Card Sort asks children to sort stimuli by one dimension, such as color, and then switch to a different dimension, such as shape. Younger children may accurately apply the first rule and then continue using it after the instructions change. The task became a major tool for studying developing executive functions because its rules are simple enough for preschoolers yet require coordination of attention and control. Zelazo (2006).

Crucially, difficulty on the task is sensitive to how dimensions are presented. Diamond, Carlson, and Beck showed that separating competing features in the sorting materials could improve young children's switching performance. The finding indicates that rule use depends partly on the representational and perceptual demands of the test, not solely on a fixed amount of flexibility inside the child. Diamond et al. (2005).

How Cognitive Flexibility Is Measured

Different methods sample different parts of the construct. Researchers should select a paradigm according to the process they intend to investigate and report which performance index was analyzed.

Task-Switching Paradigms

Cued task-switching experiments present a signal telling participants which classification or response rule to apply on the next trial. Typical outcomes include switch costs, errors, cue-based preparation effects, and sometimes the cost of maintaining more than one possible task set. A switch cost compares switch trials with repeat trials within mixed-task blocks. A mixing cost instead compares repeat trials in mixed-task blocks with trials in single-task blocks. The latter is often interpreted as reflecting sustained monitoring or maintenance of multiple possible rules, but it too incorporates several mechanisms. Kiesel et al. (2010); Schwarze et al. (2024).

Investigators distinguish predictable alternation from random switching, short from long preparation intervals, and switches between stimulus dimensions from switches between stimulus-response rules. Each manipulation answers a narrower mechanistic question. Researchers can strengthen a conclusion by examining several conditions, modeling response-time distributions, considering errors, and repeating the effect in independent samples.

Feedback-Based Rule Shifting

The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and related reversal-learning or rule-learning tasks require detecting that an established rule has ceased to work. Their defining feature is the need to use feedback rather than simply obey a displayed change cue. A participant's score may depend on how well feedback is detected, remembered, and integrated into a new hypothesis. The procedure should therefore be described alongside the score: two tasks both called flexibility measures may differ fundamentally in what causes errors.

In some studies, response perseveration is central; in others, learning rate or number of trials needed to discover the new contingency is the key endpoint. Such measures should not be pooled conceptually without examining their task demands and psychometric properties.

Test Scores, Reliability, and Construct Validity

A valid psychological measure must support the specific inference that researchers or clinicians draw from it. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, sensitivity to context, and practical usefulness are distinct questions. A tool can reliably measure a mixture of abilities without measuring cognitive flexibility in isolation; conversely, an experiment can robustly produce an average switch cost while offering limited precision for ranking individuals.

Latent-variable studies reduce some task-specific noise by combining several indicators. The classic findings of Miyake et al. (2000) and later methodological analysis by Friedman and Miyake (2017) show why converging tasks are preferable to treating a single speeded task as a transparent readout of a pure executive ability.

A rigorous study specifies the outcome definition, preregisters relevant hypotheses where possible, reports sample properties, separates exploratory from confirmatory analysis, and tests whether effects survive plausible alternative explanations. For comparisons across languages, ages, or cultures, equivalence of instructions and task demands must be examined rather than assumed.

Major Theories and Their Explanatory Boundaries

Task-Set Reconfiguration

Reconfiguration accounts propose that a change in instructions triggers adjustment of attentional weights, response rules, and other task settings. Findings that additional preparation time can reduce switch costs are compatible with this view. The size of the benefit varies, however, and a residual cost does not uniquely identify one hidden operation. A participant could also be affected by lingering interference or limited cue utilization. Monsell (2003).

Task-Set Inertia and Interference

Carryover accounts emphasize that an earlier task remains active or its response associations are retrieved after the required switch. Depending on the paradigm, repetition of the old task, stimulus, or response can alter observed costs. Thus a switch trial can reflect both implementation of the newly relevant rule and competition from recent processing history. The account encourages researchers to examine sequence effects and stimulus-response repetition rather than attributing all extra response time to voluntary reconfiguration. Kiesel et al. (2010).

Common Executive Control and Shifting-Specific Influences

The unity-and-diversity perspective asks whether stable individual differences in switching are explained by common executive-function abilities plus processes more specific to shifting. Studies combining several tasks suggest that executive-control processes overlap yet retain distinguishable variance. Statistical models depend on chosen indicators, age group, and estimation strategy, so their latent factors should be treated as models of measured covariance rather than anatomical organs or independent substances. Friedman and Miyake (2017).

Neural Accounts: Distributed Networks

Research in cognitive neuroscience associates flexible control with distributed prefrontal, parietal, and other interacting systems involved in representing goals, monitoring demands, and selecting actions. Dajani and Uddin's review warns that diverse definitions of flexibility and varying laboratory tasks complicate attempts to map it onto a single neural network. Brain-level explanations are therefore most informative when linked to a specified behavioral operation and when competing mechanisms are tested. Dajani and Uddin (2015).

These theoretical perspectives are complementary in many experimental contexts. It can be useful to ask whether a switch demanded preparation, conflict resolution, feedback learning, or sustained maintenance of alternatives instead of assuming a single explanation for every switch cost.

Cognitive Flexibility Across Development and Aging

Childhood: Learning to Change the Current Rule

Early development brings substantial change in the capacity to coordinate competing stimulus dimensions and follow a newly relevant rule. Children can know and verbally repeat a rule yet continue responding under the earlier one, illustrating that understanding an instruction and using it consistently are different achievements. Task performance also depends on how cues are presented, what language is used, and how distracting the old response has become. Zelazo (2006); Diamond et al. (2005).

Development is not a single age threshold at which flexibility suddenly appears. Different tasks develop along distinct timelines because switching speed, rule maintenance, feedback inference, and language comprehension impose different demands.

Adulthood and Older Age: Different Costs, Different Trajectories

Reviews of lifespan task switching distinguish transient switch costs from sustained mixing costs. These components need not follow the same developmental trajectory. A 2024 review described evidence that sustained control components can show different age-related patterns from trial-level switch effects and called for research that more directly examines task representations and neural connectivity. Schwarze et al. (2024).

A newer cross-sectional study of 512 participants in Argentina, aged six to seventy-five, likewise reported different nonlinear trajectories for switching and sustained-control indices. Because this is cross-sectional evidence, it describes between-age differences in one sample and cannot, by itself, establish each person's longitudinal rate of change or isolate cultural and cohort influences. Introzzi et al. (2026).

Age-related differences should be interpreted alongside practice, sensory functioning, education, response speed, and the specific performance measure. Older adults may develop compensatory strategies and preserve highly practiced routines even when a new laboratory response rule carries a larger time cost.

Context and Culture Shape What a Test Demands

A study comparing preschoolers from English-speaking U.S. settings and Tswana-speaking South African settings found similar age-related patterns on one word-learning flexibility measure but different patterns on a rule-switching task. The researchers interpreted the divergence as reason to examine task-specific and culturally patterned experience rather than assume that all flexibility tests index an identical universal developmental trajectory. Legare et al. (2018).

The finding does not rank cultures by cognitive ability. It illustrates the importance of language, familiarity with classification routines, schooling context, task framing, and opportunities to practice the skills a particular instrument requires. Responsible cross-cultural interpretation begins with measurement equivalence.

Cognitive Flexibility in Everyday Life

Flexible cognition can contribute to revising a plan when evidence changes, changing a conversation strategy when communication fails, or choosing another procedure when an earlier one no longer fits. These activities recruit multiple interacting systems. Someone may be fast at abstract rule switching yet cautious about changing a consequential personal decision for reasons that include values, knowledge, incentives, or uncertainty. The laboratory construct does not settle that broader judgment.

It is equally important to recognize that apparent inflexibility may be appropriate persistence. When evidence favors maintaining the current approach, repeated switching can be inefficient. An adaptive decision requires detecting whether the relevant conditions have actually changed, weighing the costs of transition, and applying the new rule accurately.

Everyday performance is shaped by environmental structure. Clearly signaled priorities, predictable transitions, concise instructions, and opportunities to verify a new rule can reduce avoidable errors. Such adjustments follow from understanding task demands; they are practical design implications, not proof that a particular intervention raises general cognitive flexibility.

Can Cognitive Flexibility Be Trained?

Practice usually improves performance on the practiced task, through learning the stimuli, cues, rules, timing, and response mappings. The central scientific question is transfer: does practice produce reliable improvement on different untrained tests, academic skills, work performance, or daily functioning? The answer depends on the intervention, outcome, population, control condition, and quality of evidence.

A meta-analysis of computer-based executive-function training in children reported improvements on executive-function outcomes, with important moderator differences and weaker evidence for distant transfer than for closer measures. Other broader meta-analytic reviews find that cognitive training often yields little meaningful improvement in general cognitive ability when rigorous controls are considered. These findings are compatible once investigators distinguish immediate practice effects, near transfer, and far transfer. Cao et al. (2020); Sala and Gobet (2019).

Improvements on a game or training application should therefore be described in terms of the actual outcomes demonstrated, not promoted as proven global enhancement of thinking, creativity, academic attainment, or protection from clinical disorders. Trials testing a specific intervention need active comparisons, adequate follow-up, transparent outcomes, and ecologically meaningful measures.

For everyday adaptation, practicing the actual relevant activity and arranging clear feedback may be useful without implying that a transferable mental capacity has been substantially increased. For example, training on a new workplace procedure can improve familiarity with that procedure. The stronger claim that it permanently changes domain-general executive functioning requires independent evidence.

When Cognitive Flexibility Is Discussed Clinically

Cognitive flexibility is studied in many clinical and developmental research programs because perseveration, difficulty shifting goals, and challenges with competing demands can appear in numerous conditions. Yet the same behavior can arise through different pathways: fatigue, limited comprehension, low familiarity with the test, anxiety during assessment, sensory difficulties, slowed responses, medication effects, or problems with other cognitive processes.

The clinical meaning of a difficulty depends on duration, context, developmental expectations, functional impairment, history, and an appropriately conducted assessment. A laboratory switch cost, questionnaire score, anecdotal preference for routine, or single test failure cannot establish ADHD, autism, a mood disorder, a neurocognitive disorder, or any other diagnosis. The underlying distinction is between a process studied experimentally, a measured individual difference, a symptom, and a diagnosis determined under clinical standards.

Clinical treatment questions require condition-specific evidence and professional evaluation. Basic cognitive-flexibility research can inform hypotheses about mechanisms, while diagnostic criteria and care pathways belong to the relevant clinical specialties.

How Researchers Evaluate the Strength of the Evidence

The most established observations are that switching tasks can incur reliable time and accuracy costs, that advance preparation often reduces part of those costs, and that rule-changing performance involves interacting executive processes. Classic experiments, broad reviews, and convergent task designs support these conclusions. The precise decomposition of switch costs into preparation, residual interference, reconfiguration, and other components remains theory-dependent. Monsell (2003); Kiesel et al. (2010).

Evidence for a stable, general flexibility trait is more qualified because tests differ and observed scores contain task-specific variance. Published lifespan findings support age-sensitive patterns, but much of the evidence is cross-sectional. Cultural comparisons show why standardized stimuli do not automatically produce equivalent meaning across populations. Intervention claims are most uncertain when they promise broad transfer beyond the specific trained task.

Good research connects a narrowly stated conclusion to a known measurement procedure, provides uncertainty intervals or other appropriate precision estimates, and checks competing explanations. Scientific precision in this field grows from explicitly identifying the process being tested.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a simple example of cognitive flexibility?

A child sorts cards by color and then begins sorting the same cards by shape when the instruction changes. Successful switching requires applying the new sorting rule despite the pull of the old one. The example captures a controlled form of flexibility studied experimentally. Other real-life changes add more variables.

Is cognitive flexibility the same as intelligence?

The constructs overlap in some tasks, especially where reasoning, working memory, and learning are required. They are conceptually and empirically distinguishable, but the degree of separation depends on the measures chosen. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, for example, correlates with intelligence measures and should not be treated as a pure independent index of flexibility. Kopp et al. (2019).

Is cognitive flexibility the same as multitasking?

Task switching describes moving between task sets and is one way scientists investigate flexibility. Multitasking can also involve dividing attention among simultaneous activities, sharing resources, or switching rapidly. The word multitasking alone does not identify which control demand is present. A detailed laboratory analysis must distinguish alternating tasks from truly concurrent processing.

What is the difference between cognitive flexibility and cognitive rigidity?

Flexibility concerns adapting a currently relevant representation or rule when circumstances require it. Rigidity is a descriptive term for persistence with an established representation when changing it would be useful. Both depend on context, and appropriate persistence is an essential part of good control. Describing a person's behavior as rigid does not by itself establish a psychological diagnosis.

Does a small switch cost mean someone is more flexible?

A smaller switch cost can indicate better switching performance in a given experimental setting, assuming errors and other conditions are comparable. It can also be affected by how quickly repeat trials are performed, practice, speed-accuracy tradeoffs, and cue use. Interpreting a person's general flexibility requires multiple measures and appropriate validity evidence.

Can cognitive flexibility improve with age or experience?

Many rule-switching skills develop substantially during childhood; later performance varies by task component, practice, and aging. Experience can improve a practiced activity. Evidence for general improvement across unrelated abilities requires more than a gain on one task. Schwarze et al. (2024); Introzzi et al. (2026).

Is difficulty changing plans a sign of ADHD or another disorder?

Difficulty changing plans can occur for many reasons and has no standalone diagnostic meaning. Clinical assessment considers a broader pattern of symptoms and impairment, developmental and medical history, and alternative explanations. A single experience or laboratory result is insufficient for diagnosis.

Related Articles

Task Switching and Digital Multitasking: Why Constant Switching Drains Focus examines switching in digital environments, including interruptions and the practical costs of repeatedly changing applications or activities. It complements the laboratory mechanisms explained here.

Media Multitasking: What It Is and How It Affects Attention, Memory, and Performance explores a different but related behavioral domain: concurrent media use, divided attention, and reported performance associations.

Attention in the Age of AI: Focus, Cognitive Load, and Algorithmic Competition considers how digitally mediated environments compete for limited attentional resources; the environmental questions should be kept distinct from laboratory measures of set shifting.

Cognitive Control: How the Mind Directs Goal-Focused Behavior — Explains regulation of attention and action according to goals and current demands.

Inhibitory Control: How the Mind Suppresses Competing Responses — Explains stopping responses, resisting interference, and the limits of inhibition measures.

References

Al Kharusi, N., Alkharusi, H., & Helmy, M. (2024). The meta-analysis of Wisconsin Card Sorting Test reliability. An-Najah University Journal for Research - B (Humanities), 38(5), 837–866. https://doi.org/10.35552/0247.38.5.2188

Cao, Y., Huang, T., Huang, J., Xie, X., & Wang, Y. (2020). Effects and moderators of computer-based training on children's executive functions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 580329. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580329

Dajani, D. R., & Uddin, L. Q. (2015). Demystifying cognitive flexibility: Implications for clinical and developmental neuroscience. Trends in Neurosciences, 38(9), 571–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.07.003

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Diamond, A., Carlson, S. M., & Beck, D. M. (2005). Preschool children's performance in task switching on the Dimensional Change Card Sort task: Separating the dimensions aids the ability to switch. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2), 689–729. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2802_7

Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86, 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023

Introzzi, I., Musso, M. F., Aydmune, Y., Villaroia, M. G., Ferreyra, F., Del Punta, J. A., Gasaneo, G., & Richards, M. (2026). Cognitive flexibility from childhood to older adulthood: A lifespan analysis of task-switching components. Journal of Cognition and Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2026.2735258

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842

Kopp, B., Maldonado, N., Scheffels, J. F., Hendel, M., & Lange, F. (2019). A meta-analysis of relationships between measures of Wisconsin Card Sorting and intelligence. Brain Sciences, 9(12), 349. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9120349

Legare, C. H., Dale, M. T., Kim, S. Y., & Deák, G. O. (2018). Cultural variation in cognitive flexibility reveals diversity in the development of executive functions. Scientific Reports, 8, 16326. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34756-2

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207

Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019). Cognitive training does not enhance general cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.004

Schwarze, S. A., Fandakova, Y., & Lindenberger, U. (2024). Cognitive flexibility across the lifespan: Developmental differences in the neural basis of sustained and transient control processes during task switching. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 58, 101395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2024.101395

Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS): A method of assessing executive function in children. Nature Protocols, 1, 297–301. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.46