ArticleBrain sciences2020
The Reaction Switching Produces A Greater Bias to Prepotent Response than Reaction Inhibition.
Article in Brain sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhibitory control of response execution when a frequently cued response set is rarely replaced with an alternative one.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- The role of response conflict in concealed information detection with reaction times.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Nonlinear Dynamics of Reaction Time and Time Estimation during Repetitive Test.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is a discussion about common or various mechanisms of response inhibition and response switching. To understand these mechanisms, we used a modified Go/NoGo task with three stimulus categories. The subjects were instructed to press a button in response to frequent Go stimuli, press another button in response to rare Go stimuli and hold any motor response following the presentation of NoGo stimuli. The results showed a decrease in reaction time for frequent Go, following both categories of rare stimuli and the decrease was greater following rare Go. Also, the total number of errors did not differ between Go and NoGo, however, a greater bias of error rate towards frequent Go stimuli was found for rare Go compared to NoGo. Finally, positive correlations were found between the increase in reaction time for rare Go compared to frequent Go and the number of errors for both rare Go and rare NoGo. Together, these results indicate that both rare Go and NoGo stimuli required to inhibit the prepotent response, but rare Go in comparison to NoGo stimuli also evoked a conflict between prepotent and alternative responses, which is expressed in greater response bias toward frequent Go.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.