Automatic and Controlled Response Inhibition: Associative Learning in the Go/No-Go and Stop-Signal Paradigms

By Frederick Verbruggen, Gordon D. Logan. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2008

610 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In five experiments, the authors examined the development of automatic response inhibition in the go/no-go paradigm and a modified version of the stop-signal paradigm. They hypothesized that automatic response inhibition may develop over practice when stimuli are consistently associated with stopping. All five experiments consisted of a training phase and a test phase in which the stimulus mapping was reversed for a subset of the stimuli. Consistent with the automatic-inhibition hypothesis, the authors found that responding in the test phase was slowed when the stimulus had been consistently associated with stopping in the training phase. In addition, they found that response inhibition benefited from consistent stimulus-stop associations. These findings suggest that response inhibition may rely on the retrieval of stimulus-stop associations after practice with consistent stimulus-stop mappings. Stimulus-stop mapping is typically consistent in the go/no-go paradigm, so automatic inhibition is likely to occur. However, stimulus-stop mapping is typically inconsistent in the stop-signal paradigm, so automatic inhibition is unlikely to occur. Thus, the results suggest that the two paradigms are not equivalent because they allow different kinds of response inhibition.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/effc10e01779dcf819ece59a6134954498b097cc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Problematic Use of the Internet and Self-Regulation: A Review of the Initial Studies (2012, background): “, [41], which has been shown to rely more on automatic subcortical processes (see [42] for the differences between these two inhibitory tasks).”
Individual Differences in Heart Rate Variability Predict the Degree of Slowing during Response Inhibition and Initiation in the Presence of Emotional Stimuli (2011, positive): “Go and Stop process of the horse-race model (Logan and Cowan, 1984; Verbruggen and Logan, 2008b).”
Are the neural correlates of stopping and not going identical? Quantitative meta-analysis of two response inhibition tasks (2011, methodology): “Verbruggen and Logan (2008a) have emphasized the differences between the tasks along another dimension, based on differential recruitment of automatic vs. controlled response inhibition processes.”
Electroencephalography of response inhibition tasks: functional networks and cognitive contributions. (2013, neutral): “In addition, the relative need for either automatic or controlled response inhibition processes (e.g., Verbruggen and Logan, 2008a; Aron, 2011) in a given task context might turn out to be a crucial factor.”
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences (2017, neutral): “A new set of letters was used for each block, to lessen the impact of learned, automatic associations (c.f. Verbruggen & Logan, 2008).”
Executive Functions (2012, neutral): “…Simon task (Hommel 2011), Flanker task (Eriksen & Eriksen 1974, Mullane et al. 2009), antisaccade tasks (Luna 2009, Munoz & Everling 2004), delay-ofgratification tasks (Kochanska et al. 2001, Sethi et al. 2000), go/no-go tasks (Cragg & Nation 2008), and stop-signal tasks (Verbruggen & Logan 2008).”