2016
DOI: 10.5604/17307503.1227530
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Inhibition Response Behavior Using the Go/No-Go Paradigm in Normal Individuals: Effects of Variations in the Task Design

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
(7 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A small number of ‘no‐go’ presentations (i.e. 15%) results in a more pre‐potent ‘go’ response [42]. Outcomes include: commission errors (i.e.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A small number of ‘no‐go’ presentations (i.e. 15%) results in a more pre‐potent ‘go’ response [42]. Outcomes include: commission errors (i.e.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Owing to the frequency of the Go cues (≥75%) being greater than the No-Go cues , a tendency to respond is created while participants should effortfully inhibit their responses to the No-Go cues . Participants responded to 2 blocks of 80 trials each, and this task was adapted from a previous study [ 49 ]. Participants were told to answer as quickly as possible in both tasks, which were programmed using E-PRIME 2.0(Psychology Software Tools).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CE refers to the number of errors participants make on no-go trials. In no-go trials, participants need to be able to successfully withhold their responses, which is an indicator of IC (Aron et al, 2005;Littman & Takács, 2017;Rezvanfard et al, 2016). In addition, IC can also be indexed by reaction time (RT) on go trials (Spierer et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%