ArticleNature communications2023
Calibration of cognitive tests to address the reliability paradox for decision-conflict tasks.
Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automatic value learning results in counterproductive human behavior.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Reliability and statistical power: Conceptual background and practical implications.Behavior research methods · 2026Review
- Comparing the reliability of individual differences for various measurement models in conflict tasks.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Effects of mental fatigue on basketball-specific decision-making in basketball players of different skill levels: the mediating role of attentional control.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Maximizing within-session stability in individual differences during an experiential impulsivity task.Learning & behavior · 2025Article
- Article
- Precise individual measures of inhibitory control.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Using precision approaches to improve brain-behavior prediction.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Improving the Reliability of the Pavlovian Go/No-Go Task for Computational Psychiatry Research.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- The value of error-correcting responses for cognitive assessment in games.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A measure of reliability convergence to select and optimize cognitive tasks for individual differences research.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- On the psychometric evaluation of cognitive control tasks: An Investigation with the Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive Control (DMCC) battery.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Why many studies of individual differences with inhibition tasks may not localize correlations.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
- Building a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive drivers of performance under pressure: An international multi-panel Delphi study.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- An app-enhanced cognitive fitness training program for athletes: The rationale and validation protocol.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Game-Based Cognitive Aging Assessment: Toward a Digital Biomarker of Cognitive Health.Digital biomarkersArticle
- Test-retest reliability of computational parameters versus manifest behavior for decisional flexibility in psychosis.Psychological assessmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard, well-established cognitive tasks that produce reliable effects in group comparisons also lead to unreliable measurement when assessing individual differences. This reliability paradox has been demonstrated in decision-conflict tasks such as the Simon, Flanker, and Stroop tasks, which measure various aspects of cognitive control. We aim to address this paradox by implementing carefully calibrated versions of the standard tests with an additional manipulation to encourage processing of conflicting information, as well as combinations of standard tasks. Over five experiments, we show that a Flanker task and a combined Simon and Stroop task with the additional manipulation produced reliable estimates of individual differences in under 100 trials per task, which improves on the reliability seen in benchmark Flanker, Simon, and Stroop data. We make these tasks freely available and discuss both theoretical and applied implications regarding how the cognitive testing of individual differences is carried out.
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.