Reliability and plasticity of response inhibition and interference control
Abstract
This study investigated the internal reliability, temporal stability and plasticity of commonly used measures of inhibition-related functions. Stop-signal, go/no-go, antisaccade, Simon, Eriksen flanker, Stroop and Continuous Performance tasks were administered twice to 23 healthy participants over a period of approximately 11 weeks in order to assess test-retest correlations, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and systematic between as well as within session performance changes. Most of the inhibition-related measures showed good test-retest reliabilities and internal consistencies, with the exception of the stop-signal reaction time measure, which showed poor reliability. Generally no systematic performance changes were observed across the two assessments with the exception of four variables of the Eriksen flanker, Simon and Stroop task which showed reduced variability of reaction time and an improvement in the response time for incongruent trials at second assessment. Predominantly stable performance within one test session was shown for most measures. Overall, these results are informative for studies with designs requiring temporally stable parameters e.g. genetic or longitudinal treatment studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Strong test-retest reliability and internal consistency have been reported for commonly used cognitive control paradigms.
“Moderate-to-high heritability (Friedman et al, 2008; Stins et al, 2004), as well as strong test–retest reliability and internal consistency (Wöstmann et al, 2013) have been reported for commonly used cognitive control paradigms (eg, Stroop, Eriksen Flanker).”
From Neural Correlates of Three Promising Endophenotypes of Depression: Evidence from the EMBARC Study (2016) · cites this paper as Wöstmann et al, 2013
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 123 · Cited by 217
- Authors
- Wöstmann, N. M., Aichert, D. S., Costa, A., Rubia, K., Möller, H.-J., & Ettinger, U.
- Affiliations
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- King's College London (GB)
- University of Bonn (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Ettinger, Ulrich
- Venue
- Brain and Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 82-94
- ISSN
- 0278-2626 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058353175
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 123
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Brain and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Keywords
- response inhibition, interference control, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, temporal stability, stop-signal task, go/no-go task, antisaccade task, Simon task, flanker task, Stroop task, continuous performance test, reaction time variability
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Neuronal Plasticity, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review