ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023
Stop-signal delay reflects response selection duration in stop-signal task.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023. 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.
- Has stopping stopped making sense? Disentangling the processes elicited by complex action cancellation paradigms.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- Inhibitory control is affected by reward in patients with alcohol use disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Enhancing response inhibition behavior through tDCS intervention in college students with smartphone addiction.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The stop-signal task (SST) is widely used for studying the speed of the latent process of response inhibition. The SST patterns are typically explained by a horse-race model (HRM) with supposed Go and Stop processes. However, HRM does not agree with the sequential-stage model of response control. As a result, the exact relationship between the response selection, the response execution stages, and the Stop process remains unclear. We propose that response selection occurs within the stop-signal delay (SSD) period, and that the competition between the Go and Stop processes occurs within the response execution period. To confirm this, we conducted two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants carried out a modified SST task with an additional stimulus category - Cued-Go. In the Cued-Go trials, cues were followed by imperative Go signals. The Cue-Go period duration was dynamically adjusted by an adaptive algorithm based on the response times reflecting the individual response selection duration. In Experiment 2, Cued-Go stimuli were followed by Stop Signals in half of the trials and response inhibition efficiency was calculated. The results of Experiment 1 indicate that SSD reflects the duration of the response selection process. The results of Experiment 2 show that this process has an independent and small effect on the effectiveness of controlled inhibition of the target response. Based on our findings, we propose a two-stage model of response inhibition in SST, with the first stage including response selection process and the second stage response inhibition following the SS presentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37415061What 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.