ArticleJournal of cognitive neuroscience2026
Physiological Evidence for the Time-dependent Resolution of Response Conflicts.
Article in Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive control encapsulates the mental processes that support goal-directed behavior and overcome habitual/automatic drives. Traditional RT approaches obscure the temporal dynamics of conflict resolution. We recently proposed the use of a forced-response paradigm in combination with the response preparation model (RPM) to reveal how processing related to goal-directed and automatic responses unfolds over time during the conflict resolution process. However, this model relies on overt behavior and trials when participants make an error, leaving it unclear if the insight the model provides can be used to infer the dynamic mental states that occur when conflict resolution is successful. Partial errors-subthreshold muscle activation of the incorrect response on incongruent trials before the correct response-offer a solution. Partial errors act as a physiological window into the timing of the habitual process. Across two experiments, participants completed forced-response versions of the Simon and flanker tasks while EMG was recorded from both hands. We demonstrate that the RPM accurately captures behavioral performance and that the estimations of the habitual process by the RPM correspond with the timing of partial errors. Importantly, replacing the habit process in the RPM with the timing of partial errors preserved the model's ability to accurately predict behavior. These findings offer converging behavioral, computational, and physiological evidence for the timing of the habitual response process in conflict tasks and affirm the utility of the forced-response method and RPM in examining conflict resolution.
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.