ReviewCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026
Has stopping stopped making sense? Disentangling the processes elicited by complex action cancellation paradigms.
Review in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cortical Contributions to Attentional Orienting and Response Cancellation in Action Stopping.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Action cancellation represents a fundamental aspect of human motor control. Nonetheless, the behavioural paradigms used to study it are methodologically diverse and capture an incompletely understood combination of processes. Advancing theoretical accounts of action cancellation have motivated increasingly complicated experimental designs, leading some authors to draw comparisons between "simple" and "complex" stopping tasks. The latter describes a mix of paradigms, which variably require increased working memory demands, stimulus discrimination, distractor interference, or more complex stimulus-response mappings. This narrative review provides an accessible explanation of commonly implemented complex stopping tasks, selected based on their relevance to current theoretical debates. Throughout, we describe the challenges associated with interpreting performance in these tasks and highlight future directions for research. Notably, much of the past work using these tasks has applied traditional methods of indexing the speed of stopping, which were developed specifically for simple stopping tasks, and do not generalise well beyond this context. Recent research using cognitive modelling and physiological approaches has failed to replicate earlier findings, raising fundamental questions regarding how action cancellation should be indexed. Furthermore, physiological observations in complex stopping tasks appear to be incompatible with current accounts of the neurological mechanisms that underpin action cancellation. We propose potential ways forward, highlighting how the current lack of well-controlled comparisons between task types means the literature risks extensive task-specific findings that fail to generalise between laboratories, and-critically-beyond the laboratory.
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.