Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23536081›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2013

The countermanding task revisited: fast stimulus detection is a key determinant of psychophysical performance.

Emilio Salinas, Terrence R Stanford

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Reward improves response inhibition by enhancing attentional capture.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emilio SalinasDepartment of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157-1010, USA. esalinas@wakehealth.edu
Terrence R Stanford
Wake Forest University · US

Funding

DIENCEPHALIC MECHANISMS OF VISUOMOTOR INTEGRATIONR01EY012389 · NEI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI STANFORD, TERRENCE R · 1999 to 2009
$2.5M
CRCNS:Investigating perceptual processing speed and its impact on choice behaviorR01DA030750 · NIDA · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SALINAS, EMILIO, STANFORD, TERRENCE R · 2010 to 2013
$1.2M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY012389NEI NIH HHS R01EY12389NEI NIH HHS R01EY12389-S1NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA030750NIDA NIH HHS R01DA030750
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The countermanding task is a standard method for assessing cognitive/inhibitory control over action and for investigating its neural correlates. In it, the subject plans a movement and either executes it, if no further instruction is given, or attempts to prevent it, if a stop signal is shown. Through various experimental manipulations, many studies have sought to characterize the inhibitory mechanisms thought to be at work in the task, typically using an inferred, model-dependent metric called the stop-signal reaction time. This approach has consistently overlooked the impact of perceptual evaluation on performance. Through analytical work and computer simulations, here we show that psychophysical performance in the task can be easily understood as the result of an ongoing motor plan that is modified (decelerated) by the outcome of a rapid sensory detection process. Notably, no specific assumptions about hypothetical inhibitory mechanisms are needed. This modeling framework achieves four things: (1) it replicates and reconciles behavioral results in numerous variants of the countermanding task; (2) it provides a new, objective metric for characterizing task performance that is more effective than the stop-signal reaction time; (3) it shows that the time window over which detection of a high-visibility stimulus effectively occurs is extremely short (∼20 ms); and (4) it indicates that modulating neuronal latencies and the buildup rates of developing motor plans are two key neural mechanisms for controlling action. The results suggest that manipulations of the countermanding task often cause changes in perceptual detection processes, and not necessarily in inhibition.

Indexed as

Inhibition, PsychologicalModels, NeurologicalPsychophysicsComputer SimulationExecutive FunctionHumansNeuronsPhotic StimulationReaction TimeSignal Detection, PsychologicalTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID23536081
PMCPMC3650622
OpenAlexW1979959745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.