Cited by 100Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismBehavioral Health and Interventions

Short-term aftereffects of response inhibition: Repetition priming or between-trial control adjustments?

Verbruggen, Frederick, Logan, Gordon D., Liefooghe, Baptist, Vandierendonck, André·2008·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Abstract

Repetition priming and between-trial control adjustments after successful and unsuccessful response inhibition were studied in the stop-signal paradigm. In 5 experiments, the authors demonstrated that response latencies increased after successful inhibition compared with trials that followed no-signal trials. However, this effect was found only when the stimulus (Experiments 1A-4) or stimulus category (Experiment 3) was repeated. Slightly different results were found after trials on which the response inhibition failed. In Experiments 1A, 2, and 4, response latencies increased after unsuccessful inhibition trials compared with after no-inhibition trials, and this happened whether or not the stimulus repeated. Based on these results, we suggest that the aftereffects of successful response inhibition are primarily due to repetition priming, although there was evidence for between-trial control adjustments when inhibition failed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.413

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Other studies show that go RT increases after successful stopping, which is not consistent with error correction but suggests a shift in priority toward the stop task after a stop signal.

    “Others show that go RT increases after successful stopping, which is inconsistent with error-correction but suggests a shift in priority to the stop task after a stop signal.”

    From Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm (2008) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Many studies indicate that people also alter response strategies reactively after stop-signal trials.

    “Many studies suggest that subjects also change response strategies reactively after stop-signal trials [8–11].”

    From Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm (2008) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Some studies show that go RT increases after unsuccessful inhibition, similar to post-error slowing in choice reaction tasks.

    “Some show that go RT increases after unsuccessful inhibition, reminiscent of the post-error slowing observed in choice reaction tasks.”

    From Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm (2008) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Recent studies show that stimulus repetition matters: after successful stopping, responding is typically slower when the stop-trial stimulus repeats, as if the stimulus became linked with stopping and retrieval of that link impaired go performance.

    “Recent studies show that stimulus repetition may be a critical variable: responding after successful stopping is typical slower when the stimulus from the stop trial is repeated, as if the stimulus was associated with stopping, and retrieval of that association impaired go performance [8].”

    From Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm (2008) · cites this paper as [8]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verbruggen, F., Logan, G. D., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Published
2008
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
413-426
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
OpenAlex
W2127581708
Cited by
100
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen)
  • National Science Foundation (BCS 0446806)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-07-1-0192)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
response inhibition, stop-signal task, repetition priming, response latency, stimulus repetition, stimulus category
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Association Learning, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Practice, Psychological, Reaction Time, Reference Values, Time Factors

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