ArticleScandinavian journal of psychology2021
Do shorter inter-stimulus intervals in the go/no-go task enable better assessment of response inhibition?
Article in Scandinavian journal of psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rate-Associated Differences in Within-Session Motor-Inhibitory Performance: Exploratory Role of Affective Temperament.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Influence of competition on motor inhibitory control: Evidence from a go/no-go task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Cognitive costs in motor-cognitive performance assessments depend on movement complexity and cognitive task design.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Sustained attention can be measured using a brief computerized attention task.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Response inhibition deficits are positively associated with trait rumination, but attentional inhibition deficits are not: aggressive behaviors and interpersonal stressors as mediators.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Do shorter inter-stimulus intervals in the go/no-go task enable better assessment of response inhibition?Scandinavian journal of psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Young, Sutherland, and McCoy indicated that a Go/No-Go Task (GNG) becomes more difficult as the inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs) becomes shorter. However, is the number of commission errors under extremely short ISIs a useful metric for assessing response inhibition? This study challenges the assumption that a shorter ISI in the GNG enables better assessment of response inhibition. University students (N = 213) completed the GNG, the Conners Continuous Performance Test 3rd Edition (CCPT), and the Modified Stroop Task. The GNG comprised four blocks of 400, 600, 800, and 1000 ms ISIs, whereas the stimulus presentation was fixed at 250 ms. Consistent with Young et al., shorter ISIs in the GNG resulted in more commission errors. In the block with the shortest ISI, participants also failed more frequently in responses in go trials than in the other blocks, which appears to increase in error variance of commission errors. Consistent with this interpretation, the association between the number of commission errors in the block with 400 ms ISI and CCPT performance was weaker than those between the number of commission errors in other blocks and CCPT performance. It is concluded that using the number of commission errors in the condition with extremely short ISIs in the GNG might be inappropriate for assessing response inhibition.
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.