Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36344774›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2023

Failing to attend versus failing to stop: Single-trial decomposition of action-stopping in the stop signal task.

Ricci Hannah, Vignesh Muralidharan, Adam R Aron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Stopping Muscle Contractions and Relaxations during Action Inhibition Involves Global and Targeted Control Dependent on Muscle State.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  2. Global Motor System Suppression as the Primary Mechanism of Human Action Stopping: Challenging the Pause-Then-Cancel Model.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ricci HannahDepartment of Psychology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. ricci.hannah@kcl.ac.uk.
Vignesh MuralidharanDepartment of Psychology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Adam R AronDepartment of Psychology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

How inhibitory control prevents thought intrusions and sensory and motor provocationsR01DA026452 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ARON, ADAM ROBERT · 2009 to 2021
$4.0M
Stopping behavior and interrupting cognition via subthalamic nucleusR01NS106822 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ARON, ADAM ROBERT, HNASKO, THOMAS · 2018 to 2022
$2.4M
Dissociating cognitive response control into triggering and braking processesR21DA050084 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ARON, ADAM ROBERT · 2020 to 2021
$434k
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA026452NIDA NIH HHS R21 DA050084NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS106822
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The capacity to stop impending or ongoing actions contributes to executive control over behavior. Action-stopping, however, is difficult to directly quantify. It is therefore assayed via computational modeling of behavior in the stop signal task to estimate the latency of stopping (stop signal reaction time, SSRT) and, more recently, the reliability of stopping in terms of the distribution of SSRTs (standard deviation, SD-SSRT) and the frequency with which one outright fails to react to a stop signal (trigger failures, TF). Critically, the validity of computational estimates remains unknown because we currently have no direct readouts of behavior against which to compare them. Here, we developed a method for providing single-trial behavioral readouts of SSRT and trigger failures. The method relies on an adaptation of the stop signal task in which participants respond by moving a computer mouse. In two online experiments, we used movement kinematics to quantify stopping performance (SSRT, SD-SSRT, and TF), and then applied the standard Race Model and recent BEESTS model in order to examine the convergent validity of the methods. Overall, we demonstrate good correspondence between kinematics- and model-based estimates of stopping performance at the group and individual level. We conclude that the new method provides valid estimates of stopping performance that, unlike model-based estimates, can be read out at the level of single trials. Our approach might therefore be useful for interrogating single-trial neurophysiological correlates of stopping and for large-scale, online studies of behavioral stopping.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionInhibition, PsychologicalHumansMovementPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeReproducibility of ResultsAttentionHumanImpulsivityInhibitory controlOnlineReaching movement

Identifiers

PMID36344774
PMCPMC10700434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.