ArticleNature human behaviour2025
Precise individual measures of inhibitory control.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial-level noise and the reliability of the perceptual load effect: a preliminary investigation.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Day-to-day fluctuations in cognitive precision predict the domain-general intention-behavior gap.Science advances · 2026Article
- Dense Phenotyping of Human Brain Network Organization Using Precision fMRI.Annual review of psychology · 2026Review
- Miyake Revisited: Validating the Factor Structure of an Open-Source Cognitive Control Test Battery.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- The individual-level precision of implicit measures.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inhibitory control is essential to daily function and is a key factor in numerous psychiatric disorders. One popular measure of inhibitory control is the congruency effect, but recent research has highlighted its low reliability, limiting its use for clinical and basic research questions. Here we asked whether it is possible to obtain precise individual estimates of the congruency effect. We sampled more than 5,000 trials from nine participants across four inhibitory control tasks. This dataset, made public for the community, demonstrates that precise individual estimates are achievable but with higher numbers of trials than typically collected with common tools. Using a combination of datasets and simulations, we show that extensive sampling is necessary to reveal true individual differences and improve observations from alternative modelling approaches. We share our dataset as a resource to further understand sources of variation in inhibitory control, ultimately advancing research in this critical field.
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.