CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismCognitive Abilities and Testing

The forced-response method: A new chronometric approach to measure conflict processing

Open access
Lee, Taraz G., Sellers, Jacob, Jonides, John, Zhang, Han·2024·Behavior Research Methods
DOI 10.3758/s13428-024-02516-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite long-standing concerns about the use of free reaction times (RTs) in cognitive psychology, they remain a prevalent measure of conflict resolution. This report presents the forced-response method as a fresh approach to examine speed-accuracy trade-off functions (SATs) in conflict tasks. The method involves fixing the overall response time, varying the onset of stimuli, and observing response expression. We applied this method to an arrow flanker task. By systematically varying the time between stimulus onset and response, we reveal a comprehensive time course of the flanker interference effect that is rarely observed in previous literature. We further show that influential manipulations observed in free-RT paradigms similarly affect accuracy within the forced-response technique, suggesting that the forced-response method retains the core cognitive processing characteristics of traditional free-RT conflict tasks. As a behavioral method that examines the time course of cognitive processing, the forced-response method provides a novel and more nuanced look into the dynamics of conflict resolution.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13428-024-02516-y

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Treating RT and accuracy as distinct outcomes does not appropriately account for the speed-accuracy trade-off that exists between the two parameters.

    “However, treating RT and accuracy as distinct outcomes does not appropriately account for the speed-accuracy trade-off that exists between the two parameters24,25.”

    From Delayed goal-directed processing underlies inhibitory control challenges in adult ADHD (2026) · cites this paper as [25]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Adkins, T. J., & Lee, T. G. (2023). Reward accelerates the preparation of goal-directed actions under Conflict. Journal of Cognitive Neu- roscience, 1-16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ jocn_a_ 02072 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Adkins, T. J., Zhang, H., & Lee, T. G. (2024). People are more error- prone after committing an error. Nature Communications, 15(1), 6422. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41467-024-50547-y · DOI
  3. Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2000). On the relationship between recognition speed and accuracy for words rehearsed via rote ver- sus elaborative rehearsal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 638-648. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0278-7393. 26.3. 638 · DOI
  4. Blais, C., & Bunge, S. (2010). Behavioral and neural evidence for item- specific performance monitoring. Journal of Cognitive Neuro- science, 22(12), 2758-2767. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ jocn. 2009. 21365 · DOI
  5. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psycho- logical Review, 108(3), 624-652. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 295X. 108.3. 624 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cohen, J. D., Servan-Schreiber, D., & McClelland, J. L. (1992). A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. The American Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 239-269. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 14230 29 · DOI
  7. Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure" change": Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74(1), 68.
  8. Dosher, B. A. (1976). The retrieval of sentences from memory: A speed-accuracy study. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 291-310.
  9. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265-287.
  10. Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 380-390. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ CABN.7. 4. 380 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149.
  12. Fitts, P. M. (1966). Cognitive aspects of information processing: III. Set for speed versus accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy, 71(6), 849.
  13. Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibi- tion and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101-135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0096-3445. 133.1. 101 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480.
  15. Haith, A. M., Pakpoor, J., & Krakauer, J. W. (2016). Independence of movement preparation and movement initiation. Journal of Neu- roscience, 36(10), 3007-3015. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1523/ JNEUR OSCI. 3245-15. 2016 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hardwick, R. M., Forrence, A. D., Krakauer, J. W., & Haith, A. M. (2019). Time-dependent competition between goal-directed and habitual response preparation. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(12), 1252-1262. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41562-019-0725-0 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Hedge, C., Powell, G., Bompas, A., & Sumner, P. (2020). Strategy and processing speed eclipse individual differences in control ability in conflict tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https:// doi. org/ 10. 31234/ osf. io/ vgpxq · DOI
  18. Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fnins. 2014. 00150 · DOI
  19. Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: Individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 217-240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0096-3445. 136.2. 217 · DOI
  20. Hilchey, M. D., Ivanoff, J., Taylor, T. L., & Klein, R. M. (2011). Visu- alizing the temporal dynamics of spatial information processing responsible for the Simon effect and its amplification by inhibition of return. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 235-244. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. actpsy. 2010. 09. 003 · DOI
  21. Hintzman, D. L., & Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recogni- tion and frequency judgments: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 1-18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jmla. 1994. 1001 · DOI
  22. Liesefeld, H. R., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Combining speed and accuracy to control for speed-accuracy trade-offs(?). Behav- ior Research Methods, 51(1), 40-60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ s13428-018-1076-x · DOI
  23. Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12(4), 523-553.
  24. Lu, C., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(2), 174-207. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ BF032 10959 · DOI
  25. Manohar, S. G., Chong, T.T.-J., Apps, M. A., Batla, A., Stamelou, M., Jarman, P. R., Bhatia, K. P., & Husain, M. (2015). Reward pays the cost of noise reduction in motor and cognitive control. Current Biology, 25(13), 1707-1716.
  26. McElree, B. (1998). Attended and non-attended states in working memory: Accessing categorized structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 225-252. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jmla. 1997. 2545 · DOI
  27. McElree, B., & Dosher, B. A. (1989). Serial position and set size in short-term memory: The time course of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(4), 346-373. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0096-3445. 118.4. 346 · DOI
  28. Miller, J., & Ulrich, R. (2013). Mental chronometry and individual dif- ferences: Modeling reliabilities and correlations of reaction time means and effect sizes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(5), 819-858. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ s13423-013-0404-5 · DOI
  29. Öztekin, I., & McElree, B. (2007). Proactive interference slows recog- nition by eliminating fast assessments of familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), 126-149. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jml. 2006. 08. 011 · DOI
  30. Öztekin, I., & McElree, B. (2010). Relationship between measures of working memory capacity and the time course of short-term memory retrieval and interference resolution. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 383-397. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0018 029 · DOI
  31. Pachella, R. G. (1974). The Interpretation of reaction time in infor- mation-processing research. In B. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing (1st ed., pp. 41-82). Routledge.
  32. Pachella, R. G., & Pew, R. W. (1968). Speed-accuracy tradeoff in reaction time: Effect of discrete criterion times. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1p1), 19.
  33. Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchen- berger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195-203. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ s13428-018-01193-y · DOI
  34. Ratcliff, R. (2006). Modeling response signal and response time data. Cognitive Psychology, 53(3), 195-237. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cogps ych. 2005. 10. 002 · DOI
  35. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1982). Speed and accuracy in the pro- cessing of false statements about semantic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni- tion, 8(1), 16-36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0278-7393.8. 1. 16 · DOI
  36. Reed, A. V. (1973). Speed-accuracy trade-off in recognition memory. Science, 181(4099), 574-576.
  37. Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in percep- tion and action (1st ed., pp. 494-519). Oxford University Press.
  38. Schramm, P., & Rouder, J. N. (2019). Are Reaction Time Transfor- mations Really Beneficial? OSF. https:// doi. org/ 10. 31234/ osf. io/ 9ksa6 · DOI
  39. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174.
  40. Stafford, T., Pirrone, A., Croucher, M., & Krystalli, A. (2020). Quan- tifying the benefits of using decision models with response time and accuracy data. Behavior Research Methods, 52(5), 2142- 2155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ s13428-020-01372-w · DOI
  41. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643.
  42. Swensson, R. G., & Edwards, W. (1971). Response strategies in a two-choice reaction task with a continuous cost for time. Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology, 88(1), 67.
  43. Teichert, T., Ferrera, V. P., & Grinband, J. (2014). Humans optimize decision-making by delaying decision onset. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e89638. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 00896 38 · DOI
  44. van Leeuwen, J., Smeets, J. B. J., & Belopolsky, A. V. (2019). Forget binning and get SMART: Getting more out of the time-course of response data. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(8), 2956-2967. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ s13414-019-01788-3 · DOI
  45. Vandierendonck, A. (2017). A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 653-673. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ s13428-016-0721-5 · DOI
  46. Vandierendonck, A. (2021). On the utility of integrated speed- accuracy measures when speed-accuracy trade-off is present. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), 22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5334/ joc. 154 · DOI
  47. von Bastian, C. C., Blais, C., Brewer, G. A., Gyurkovics, M., Hedge, C., Kałamała, P., Meier, M. E., Oberauer, K., Rey-Mermet, A., Rouder, J. N., Souza, A. S., Bartsch, L. M., Conway, A. R. A., Draheim, C., Engle, R. W., Friedman, N. P., Frischkorn, G. T., Gustavson, D. E., Koch, I., …., & Wiemers, E. A. (2020). Advancing the understanding of individual differences in atten- tional control: Theoretical, methodological, and analytical con- siderations [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https:// doi. org/ 10. 31234/ osf. io/ x3b9k · DOI
  48. Whelan, R. (2008). Effective analysis of reaction time data. The Psy- chological Record, 58(3), 475-482. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF033 95630 · DOI
  49. Wickelgren, W. A., Corbett, A. T., & Dosher, B. A. (1980). Priming and retrieval from short-term memory: A speed accuracy trade-off analysis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 387-404. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0022-5371(80) 90276-5 · DOI
  50. Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441-517. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jmla. 2002. 2864 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Zeischka, P., Coomans, D., Deroost, N., Vandenbossche, J., & Soetens, E. (2011). Target-flanker discriminability affects conflict size but not sustained suppression. Acta Psychologica, 136(1), 148-156.
  52. Zhang, H., Sellers, J., Lee, T., & Jonides, J. (2024). The Temporal Dynamics of Visual Attention. Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy: General. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ xge00 01661 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, T. G., Sellers, J., Jonides, J., & Zhang, H.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
ORCID
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-12-12
Volume
57
Issue
1
Pages
15-15
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
DOI
10.3758/s13428-024-02516-y
OpenAlex
W4405314378
Cited by
11
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH129909)
  • College of Literature, Science, and Arts, University of Michigan (U074369)
  • Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (2342319)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
conflict processing, speed-accuracy trade-off, flanker interference, reaction time (psychology), stimulus onset asynchrony, accuracy
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Time Factors, 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