The Index Predicting Power and Feedback Processing Characteristics in the WCST
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 8, Issue 3, June 2019, Pages: 72-78
Received: May 5, 2019; Accepted: Jun. 12, 2019; Published: Jun. 26, 2019
Views 453      Downloads 87
Xia Feng, Department of Psychology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
Chengzhi Feng, Department of Psychology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
Article Tools
Follow on us
Based on the performance of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), participants can be divided into high and low cognitive flexibility groups. The cognitive differences between the two groups need further study. However, studies have grouped participants according to different criteria of the WCST. Based on the classical WCST, the present study investigated two issues in college students: (1) the power of indexes for predicting performance, and (2) the feedback processing characteristics of high and low cognitive flexibility participants. The regression analysis showed TCF (trials to complete the first classification) and PR% (the percentage of perseverative response) were powerful predictors. We further divided participants into high and low cognitive flexibility groups according to the regression equation. Regarding the feedback processing characteristics, we classified all trials in rule-search phase as one of four types: correct-correct (coCO), correct-error (coER), error-error (erER), and error-correct (erCO), which were based on the relationship between the former feedback and the current response. The results revealed that compared with the low cognitive flexibility group, the high cognitive flexibility group could learn effectively from feedback. Differences in the feedback processing ability may be one of the reasons for the differential performance of college students on the WCST task.
WCST, Perseverative Response, Cognitive Flexibility, Feedback Process
To cite this article
Xia Feng, Chengzhi Feng, The Index Predicting Power and Feedback Processing Characteristics in the WCST, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 8, No. 3, 2019, pp. 72-78. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20190803.13
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Berg, E. (1948). A simple objective test for measuring flexibility in thinking. The Journal of General Psychology, 39 (1), 15-22.
Milner, B. (1963). Effects of different brain lesions on card sorting -- the role of the frontal lobes. Arch Neurol, 9 (1), 90-100.
Robinson, A. L., Heaton, R. K., Lehman, R. A., & Stilson, D. W. (1980). The utility of the wisconsin card sorting test in detecting and localizing frontal lobe lession. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48 (5), 605-614.
Eling, P., Derckx, K., & Maes, R. (2008). On the historical and conceptual background of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Brain and Cognition, 67 (3), 247-253.
Li, F., & Sun, F. (2017). Feedback based catetory learning: a new task of exploring children's cognitive flexibility. Journal of Psychological Science, 40 (6), 1399-1404.
Dong, X., Du, X., & Qi, B. (2016). Conceptual Knowledge Influences Decision Making Differently in Individuals with High or Low Cognitive Flexibility: An ERP Study. Plos One, 11 (8): e0158875.
Liu, H., Fan, N., Shen, X., & Ji, J. (2013). Effects of cognitive flexibility on language switching in non-proficient bilinguals: an ERPs study. Ata Psychologica Sinica, 45 (6), 636-648.
Li, M., & Bai, X. (2005). A comparative study of the results of working memory and the reading of scientific essays of college students with different cognitive flexibility. Psychological Science, 28 (2), 329-331.
Dajani, D. R., & Uddin, L. Q. (2015). Demystifying cognitive flexibility: Implications for clinical and developmental neuroscience. Trends in Neuroscience, 38 (9), 571-578.
Buchsbaum, B. R., Greer, S., Chang, W., & Berman, K. F. (2005). Meta-Analysis of Neuroimaging Studies of the Wisconsin Card-Sorting Task and Component Processes. Human Brain Mapping, 25, 35-45.
Wang, J., Cao, B., Cai, X., Gao, H., & Li, F. (2015). Brain Activation of Negative Feedback in Rule Acquisition Revealed in a Segmented Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Plos One, 10 (10), e0140731.
Monchi, O., Petrides, M., Petre, V., Worsley, K., & Dagher, A. (2001). Wisconsin Card Sorting Revisited: Distinct Neural Circuits Participating in Different Stages of the Task Identified by EventRelated Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21 (19), 7733-7741.
Prentice, K. J., Gold, J. M., & Buchanan, R. W. (2008). The Wisconsin Card Sorting impairment in schizophrenia is evident in the first four trials. Schizophrenia Research, 106, 81-87.
Somsen, R. J. M., Molen, M. W. V. d., Jennings, J. R., & Beek, B. v. (2000). Wisconsin Card Sorting in adolescents: analysis of performance, response times and heart rate. Ata Psychologica, 104 (2), 227-257.
Langea, F., Seera, C., & Kopp, B. (2017). Cognitive flexibility in neurological disorders: Cognitive components and event-related potentials. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 83, 496-507.
Rabin, L. A., Barr, W. B., & Burton, L. A. (2005). Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: A survey of INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20 (1), 33-65.
Langea, F., Kip, A., Klein, T., Müller, D., Seer, C., & Kopp, B. (2018). Effects of rule uncertainty on cognitive flexibility in a card-sorting paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 190, 53-64.
Buttelmann, F., & Karbach, J. (2017). Development and plasticity of cognitive flexibility in early and middle childhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 8: 1040
Greve, K. W., Brooks, J., Crouch, J. A., & Rice, W. J. (1997). Factorial structure of the wisconsin card sorting test. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36 (2), 283-285.
Greve, K. W., Stickle, T. R., Love, J. M., Bianchini, K. J., & Standford, M. S. (2005). Latent structure of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: a confirmatory factor analytic study. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20 (3), 355-364.
Polgár, P., Réthelyi, J. M., Bálint, S., Komlósi, S., Czobor, P., & Bitter, I. (2010). Executive function in deficit schizophrenia: What do the dimensions of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test tell us? Schizophrenia Research, 122, 85-93.
Li, C. S. R. (2004). Do schizophrenia patients make more perseverative than non-perseverative errors on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test? A meta-analytic study. Psychiatry Research, 129 (2), 179-190.
Perry, W., & Braff, D. L. (1998). A multimethod approach to assessing perseverations in schizophrenia patients. Schizophrenia Research, 33, 69-77.
Tan, Y., Zou, Y., Qu, Y., & Guo, X. (2002). Stability of commonly used measures in the wisconsin card sorting test. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 16 (12), 831-833.
Broadbent, J., & Stokes, M. A. (2013). Removal of negative feedback enhances WCST performance for individuals with ASD. Research in Autism Spectrum Discorders, 7 (6), 785-792.
Li, F., Wang, J., Du, B., & Cao, B. (2018). Electrophysiological Response to the Informative Value of Feedback Revealed in a Segmented Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (57).
Du, B., Cao, B., He, W., & Li, F. (2018). Different Electrophysiological Responses to Informative Value of Feedback Between Children and Adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 346.
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186