ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Moving beyond button presses to enhance the reliability of congruency tasks.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developmental and individual differences in conflict processing are commonly assessed with button-press measures of response time and accuracy in congruency tasks such as the Eriksen flanker task. However, when the reliability of response time and accuracy congruency effects are reported, the measures frequently fall short of the reliability levels needed to draw firm conclusions. In Study 1, we re-analyzed data from nine hand-tracking experiments. We found that reaching behavior generated high congruency effect reliabilities across different age groups (children, young adults, and older adults) in arrow versions of the flanker task, with split-half reliabilities often above .85 in response time, initiation time, movement time, or movement curvature. Adult performance of the Stroop task revealed congruency effect reliabilities ranging from .76 in movement curvature to .89 in initiation time. In contrast, the Simon task revealed a good reliability estimate in movement curvature for children (.84) and acceptable estimates in response time (.72), movement time (.76), and curvature (.75) for adults. Study 2 tested the reliability of a release-and-press version of the arrow flanker task using a keyboard in one condition and a touchscreen in another condition (N = 51). The keyboard condition generated high congruency effect reliability estimates in response time (.91), initiation time (.94), and movement time (.88), while the touchscreen condition generated high-reliability estimates in response time (.85) and initiation time (.94), and a lower estimate for movement time (.78). These results indicate that the reliability of congruency tasks can be enhanced by moving beyond traditional button-press measures of performance.
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.