| Popis: |
The stop-signal task is widely used in experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience research, as well as neuropsychological and clinical practice for assessing response inhibition. The task requires participants to make speeded responses on a majority of trials, but to inhibit responses when a stop signal appears after the imperative cue. The stop-signal delay after the onset of the imperative cue determines how difficult it is to cancel an initiated action. The delay is typically staircased to maintain a 50% stopping accuracy for an estimation of stopping speed to be calculated. However, the validity of this estimation is compromised when participants engage in strategic slowing, motivated by a desire to avoid stopping failures. We hypothesized that maintaining stopping accuracy at 66.67% reduces this bias, and that slowing may also be impacted by the level of experimenter supervision. We found that compared with 50%, using a 66.67% stopping accuracy staircase produced slower stop-signal reaction time estimations (≈7 ms), but resulted in fewer strategic slowing exclusions. Additionally, both staircase procedures had similar within-experiment test–retest reliability. We also found that while individual and group testing in a laboratory setting produced similar estimations of stopping speed, participants tested online produced slower estimates. Our findings indicate that maintaining stopping accuracy at 66.67% is a reliable method for estimating stopping speed and can have benefits over the standard 50% staircase procedure. Further, our results show that care should be taken when comparing between experiments using different staircases or conducted in different testing environments. |
Full text from SpringerLink