I would say either is fine. The important thing is bringing across that you know the kind work being done there and have ideas on how your own research connects with it in interesting ways. Good luck!

Oh, no particular reason: we just mention a few clinical populations as examples, it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. Folks have also reported task-switching deficits in schizophrenia (and many other conditions). Thanks for reading!

I decided to start a substack where I hope to share weekly thoughts on psychology, science and philosophy--with the occasional discussion of poetry or fiction, depending on what I am reading. (2/n)

If they’ll have me…

In that case I'd acknowledge both awards.

Ha, awesome, thanks!

But I'd avoid citing multiple grants, because funders don't like the idea that they're paying for something that you already have another source of money for (even their own grants). That's why NIH insists on explicit declaration of potential overlap in you Other Support statement.

There are definitely gray areas: e.g., if a grant pays a chunk of your salary and you write a review paper that wasn't part of the proposed studies but is in the broad area of the grant, I would feel justified to cite it as "supporting" that paper.

You should technically only credit the grant that actually supported the specific study in question. At least in my experience, citing multiple grants for one study is frowned upon and could cause trouble (e.g., the NIH wondering about “overlap”).