Many of the members of the CNTRICS executive committee were aware of promising paradigms from cognitive neuroscience that were potential measures of the cognitive constructs identified at the first CNTRICS meeting. However, the CNTRICS executive committee also knew that there were many paradigms about which we were unaware and we wanted to solicit nominations as broadly as possible. Hence, we advertised in diverse venues as a way to solicit nominations from basic and clinical scientists who might have relevant information about promising tasks. To do so, we sent an e-mail notification to anyone who had ever attended a prior CNTRICS meeting and to anyone identified as a potential respondent in any prior CNTRICS survey. In addition, we posted advertisements in venues such as the Neuroscience Nexus (the Society for Neuroscience newsletter), the Cognitive Neuroscience Society newsletter, and the listserves of relevant societies. In addition, we identified authors who had published data with new paradigms in major cognitive neuroscience journals and sent them e-mail notifications as well.
We asked nominators to provide us with initial information about the paradigms in several different domains. First, we asked them to tell us which of the 11 CNTRICS constructs they felt the paradigm measured and asked them to provide us with an overview of the data supporting the construct validity of the paradigm as a measure of the selected construct. Second, we asked them to tell us about the data identifying the neural mechanisms that supported performance on the task. Third, we asked them to tell us if there were any published or unpublished data on psychometric characteristics such as test-retest reliability, practice effects, floor/ceiling effects, etc. Fourth, we asked them to tell us if there were any available homologous animal models of the task. Lastly, we asked them to answer 3 questions that would help identify where the task was in a translational research pathway.
Question 1 (choose one option):
- 1.There is evidence that this specific task elicits deficits in schizophrenia.
- 2.This specific task needs to be studied in individuals with schizophrenia.
Question 2 (choose one option):
- 3.Data already exist on the psychometric characteristics of this task, such as test-retest reliability, practice effects, ceiling/floor effects.
- 4.We need to assess psychometric characteristics such as test-retest reliability, practice effects, ceiling/floor effects.
Question 3 (choose one option):
- 5.There is evidence that performance on this task can improve in response to pharmacological or psychological interventions.
- 6.We need to study whether performance on this task can improve in response to pharmacological or psychological interventions.
CNTRICS received a total of 48 task nominations. Of these 48 nominations, 7 were not considered at the third meeting either because they were already established neuropsychological tasks (eg, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Complex Figure of Rey, Tower of London) or because the nomination was so general that a specific task could not be identified (eg, “eye tracking”). Of the 41 remaining nominations, several were nominated as measures of several different constructs. In order to make the process of task discussion and selection at the in-person meeting as efficient as possible, the CNTRICS executive committee decided that each task should be considered for only 1 or 2 constructs. Thus, for tasks nominated for many different constructs, the CNTRICS executive committee selected 1 or 2 of the constructs that they felt were the best fit for the task. The tasks that were evaluated for each of the 11 constructs are shown in . The CNTRICS staff then gathered as many published references as possible for each task to include with the materials that would be provided to the participants at that the third meeting. This information was collated into packets that described the nominated tasks in for each construct along with a brief summary of the supporting information for their nomination. In addition, 2 primary articles were identified for each paradigm and made available to all conference attendees prior to the meeting (they could request the full set of articles relevant to each task if they so desired).
Criteria Used To Evaluate Task Nominations