The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measurement and Reliability of Response Inhibition
Open accessAbstract
Response inhibition plays a critical role in adaptive functioning and can be assessed with the Stop-signal task, which requires participants to suppress prepotent motor responses. Evidence suggests that this ability to inhibit a prepotent motor response (reflected as Stop-signal reaction time (SSRT)) is a quantitative and heritable measure of interindividual variation in brain function. Although attention has been given to the optimal method of SSRT estimation, and initial evidence exists in support of its reliability, there is still variability in how Stop-signal task data are treated across samples. In order to examine this issue, we pooled data across three separate studies and examined the influence of multiple SSRT calculation methods and outlier calling on reliability (using Intra-class correlation). Our results suggest that an approach which uses the average of all available sessions, all trials of each session, and excludes outliers based on predetermined lenient criteria yields reliable SSRT estimates, while not excluding too many participants. Our findings further support the reliability of SSRT, which is commonly used as an index of inhibitory control, and provide support for its continued use as a neurocognitive phenotype.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001 · Cited by 5,220
On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a theory of an act of control
Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.91.3.295 · Cited by 2,590
Aron, A. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4682-05.2006 · Cited by 1,630
Self-citationOn the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: A model and a method.
Logan, G. D., Cowan, W. B., & Davis, K. A. (1984) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.2.276 · Cited by 1,542
Impulsivity and Inhibitory Control
Logan, G. D., Schachar, R. J., & Tannock, R. (1997) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00545.x · Cited by 1,394
On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A users' guide to the stop signal paradigm
Logan, G. D. (1994) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 1,115
Development of inhibitory control across the life span.
Williams, B. R., Ponesse, J. S., Schachar, R. J., Logan, G. D., & Tannock, R. (1999) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.205 · Cited by 889
On the ability to inhibit thought and action: General and special theories of an act of control.
Logan, G. D., Van Zandt, T., Verbruggen, F., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0035230 · Cited by 875
Cited by
Verbruggen, F., Aron, A. R., Band, G. P., Beste, C., Bissett, P. G., Brockett, A. T., Brown, J. W., Chamberlain, S. R., Chambers, C. D., Colonius, H., et al. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.46323 · Cited by 990
Self-citationDeficits in behavioural inhibition in substance abuse and addiction: a meta-analysis.
Smith, J. L., Mattick, R. P., Jamadar, S. D., & Iredale, J. M. (2014) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.08.009 · Cited by 546
Nielsen, L., Riddle, M., King, J. W., Aklin, W. M., Chen, W., Clark, D., Collier, E., Czajkowski, S., Esposito, L., Ferrer, R., et al. (2018) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2017.07.002 · Cited by 446
“…cognitive (e.g., stop-signal task) and behavioral (e.g., temporal discounting tasks) components of selfregulation, as well as indirect measures such as the effect of reappraisal strategies on emotional function (e.g., Bickel, Koffarnus, Moody, & Wilson, 2014; Congdon et al., 2012; Behav Res Ther.”
BackgroundSensitive periods of substance abuse: Early risk for the transition to dependence
Jordan, C. J., & Andersen, S. L. (2017) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2016.10.004 · Cited by 455
“A number of PFC-mediated risk behaviors are measurable in both human and animal models, such as in stop-signal and go/no go paradigms (Congdon et al., 2012; Eagle and Baunez, 2010; Smith et al., 2014), although in rodents these paradigms require training that extends beyond adolescence.”
Verbruggen, F., Chambers, C. D., & Logan, G. D. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612457390 · Cited by 386
Metadata
- Authors
- Congdon, E., Mumford, J. A., Cohen, J. R., Galvan, A., Canli, T., & Poldrack, R. A.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 3
- Pages
- 37-37
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1971969868
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 6.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measurement and Reliability of Response Inhibition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00037
- The paper
- Congdon, E., Mumford, J. A., Cohen, J. R., Galvan, A., Canli, T., & Poldrack, R. A. (2012). Measurement and Reliability of Response Inhibition. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00037
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
