Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many cancer survivors experience cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI), often with significant negative consequences across various life domains. Emerging evidence suggests that allowing additional time to process information before acting may be a useful strategy for those with CRCI to mitigate some of its impacts. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST), a measure of general cognition, has shown that for some cancer survivors, longer task completion time facilitates similar task performance outcomes to control populations concerning perseveration errors; a key performance metric of the WCST. However, assessing if this strategy may be useful, as well as determining for whom it may be useful, with regard to strengths and weaknesses among select cognitive domains, is challenging due to factors such as the problem of task impurity. Accordingly, this study provides an initial computational and experimental assessment of whether additional time to process information before acting is a useful strategy for those with CRCI. METHODS: We simulated individual cognitive differences observed in humans by varying contributions of executive functioning components (updating, shifting, inhibition) to yield 48 distinct computational models of the WCST. Our main manipulation was then to provide these models with more or less time (at three levels of 20, 40 and 60 cycles) before models executed an action to sort a given card. We compared the number of perseveration errors on the WCST produced by the computational models. Additionally, we determined models that simulated the performance of cancer survivors on the WCST by comparing the number of perseveration errors produced by the models to human data. RESULTS: Additional processing time resulted in the models producing significantly fewer perseveration errors, supporting our hypothesis. In addition, 8 unique models simulated the performance of cancer survivors on the WCST. Additional time appeared to have a positive influence on performance primarily by mitigating the impacts of severe inhibition impairments. For more severe global executive function impairments, a substantial amount of additional time was required to mitigate the impacts of the impairments. For the most severe impairments, additional time was unable to adequately mitigate the impact on performance. CONCLUSION: Additional processing time may be a useful strategy to rectify perseveration errors among cancer survivors with CRCI. Our findings have implications for the development of practical strategies, such as workload and deadline management in occupational settings, which may mitigate the negative effects of CRCI.