A reaction-time adjusted PSI method for estimating performance in the stop-signal task

A central experimental task in executive control research is the Stop-signal task, which allows measuring the ability to inhibit dominant responses. A crucial aspect of this task consists of varying the delay between the Go- and Stop-signal. Since the time necessary to administer the task can be long, a method of optimal delay choice was recently proposed: the PSI method. In a behavioral experiment, we show a variant of this method, the PSI marginal method, to be unable to deal with the Go-response slowing often observed in the Stop-signal task. We propose the PSI adjusted method, which is able to deal with this response slowing by correcting the estimation process for the current reaction time. In several sets of behavioral simulations, as well as another behavioral experiment, we document and compare the statistical properties of the PSI marginal method, our PSI adjusted method, and the traditional staircase method, both when reaction times are constant and when they are linearly increasing. The results show the PSI adjusted method’s performance to be comparable to the PSI marginal method in the case of constant Go-response times, and to outperform the PSI marginal method as well as the staircase methods when there is response slowing. The PSI adjusted method thus offers the possibility of efficient estimation of Stop-signal reaction times in the face of response slowing.

[1]  M. Vink,et al.  The role of stop‐signal probability and expectation in proactive inhibition , 2015, The European journal of neuroscience.

[2]  G. Logan On the ability to inhibit thought and action , 1984 .

[3]  G. Logan,et al.  Inhibitory control in mind and brain: an interactive race model of countermanding saccades. , 2007, Psychological review.

[4]  Radford M. Neal Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2007, Technometrics.

[5]  T. Wager,et al.  Motivational influences on response inhibition measures. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Patrick G. Bissett,et al.  Stop before you leap: changing eye and hand movements requires stopping. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Ian Greenhouse,et al.  Stopping a response has global or nonglobal effects on the motor system depending on preparation. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[8]  Nicolaas Prins,et al.  The psychometric function: the lapse rate revisited. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[9]  Jeffrey D Schall,et al.  Models of inhibitory control , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  G. Logan,et al.  Fictitious Inhibitory Differences , 2013, Psychological science.

[11]  Qiang Wang,et al.  The Role of the Frontal and Parietal Cortex in Proactive and Reactive Inhibitory Control: A Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Study , 2016, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  How to Stop and Change a Response: the Role of Goal Activation in Multitasking , 2022 .

[13]  R. Kahn,et al.  Reduced Proactive Inhibition in Schizophrenia Is Related to Corticostriatal Dysfunction and Poor Working Memory , 2011, Biological Psychiatry.

[14]  Drew H. Abney,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance Influence of Musical Groove on Postural Sway , 2015 .

[15]  G. Logan,et al.  Proactive adjustments of response strategies in the stop-signal paradigm. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Sheng Zhang,et al.  Anticipating conflict: Neural correlates of a Bayesian belief and its motor consequence , 2015, NeuroImage.

[17]  Yu Lv,et al.  DNS study of swirling intensity effect on flow pattern of a circular jet , 2010, J. Vis..

[18]  Evan J. Livesey,et al.  Validation of a Bayesian Adaptive Estimation Technique in the Stop-Signal Task , 2016, PloS one.

[19]  N. Prins The psi-marginal adaptive method: How to give nuisance parameters the attention they deserve (no more, no less). , 2013, Journal of vision.

[20]  Maren Boecker,et al.  Stop or stop-change--does it make any difference for the inhibition process? , 2013, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[21]  F. Verbruggen,et al.  How to withhold or replace a prepotent response: An analysis of the underlying control processes and their temporal dynamics , 2017, Biological Psychology.

[22]  C. Tyler,et al.  Bayesian adaptive estimation of psychometric slope and threshold , 1999, Vision Research.

[23]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  Responding with Restraint: What Are the Neurocognitive Mechanisms? , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  G. Logan,et al.  Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms , 2009, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.