ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2024
The affective consequences of response inhibition determine no-go-based crosstalk effects in dual tasks.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backward crosstalk effects (BCEs) are observed in dual-task studies when characteristics of Task 2 influence Task 1 performance. When Task 2 is a go/no-go task, responses in Task 1 are slower when Task 2 is a no-go as compared with a go trial. This no-go BCE has been argued to be due to response inhibition spilling over from Task 2 to Task 1. Growing evidence shows that response inhibition elicits negative affect leading to affective devaluation of associated stimuli. We tested for a functional role of the negative affective consequence of response inhibition in the no-go BCE by investigating its interaction with affective processing in Task 1. In four experiments, Task 1 was a valence categorisation task, and Task 2 a go/no-go task. In all experiments, the no-go BCE strongly depended on affective processing in Task 1. While this modulation could be attributed to an affective (mis)match between stimulus features in both tasks in Experiments 1 and 2, Experiments 3 and 4 provided evidence for an affective (mis)match between stimulus valence in Task 1 and affective consequences of Task 2 response inhibition. The results are discussed in the context of current theories of no-go BCEs in dual tasks.
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.