Reward does not alter the speed or variability of response execution in either stop signal task¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Reward conditions did not significantly affect mean reaction time or its variability on go trials in either task. → Sinopoli 2011

Evidence¶

Sinopoli 2011¶

Sinopoli, K.J., Schachar, R., & Dennis, M. (2011). Reward Improves Cancellation and Restraint Inhibition Across Childhood and Adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1479-89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024440

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Repeated measures ANOVA of go-trial mean reaction time across NO, LOW, and HIGH reward conditions in both cancellation and restraint tasks. The article reports no significant reward effect on response execution speed; no effect size is printed.

"Reward did not significantly affect the speed of response execution in either task (see Table 3)."

Sinopoli 2011 (2)¶

Sinopoli, K.J., Schachar, R., & Dennis, M. (2011). Reward Improves Cancellation and Restraint Inhibition Across Childhood and Adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1479-89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024440

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Repeated measures ANOVA of the standard deviation of go reaction time across reward conditions and tasks. The article reports no reward effect and no significant reward interactions; no effect size is printed.

"Reward did not alter the variability of go responses, and there were no significant interactions with reward (see Table 3)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Go-trial response times are slower during the stop-signal task than the no-tone task, with no diagnostic group difference — related
• Maltreated and nonmaltreated adolescents show similar reaction times on go trials of the go/no go task — related
• Introducing intermittent stop trials does not change processing speed (drift rate) in children with or without ADHD — related
• Reactive inhibition speed and accuracy improve with age between 8 and 11 years, while proactive response slowing does not increase with age — related
• Non-decision time (encoding/motor speed) is unchanged when inhibitory demands are introduced — related
• Children adopt a more cautious response strategy (higher boundary separation) when intermittent stop trials are introduced — related
• Pre-adolescent children already exhibit proactive inhibitory control, slowing responses as stop-signal probability increases — related
• Children with and without ADHD show equivalent increases in response caution when stop trials are introduced — related
• Acute moderate aerobic exercise speeds children's reaction times without improving accuracy, with greater speed gains on choice than simple reaction time tasks — related
• Go-trial accuracy was lower under reward conditions, an effect mediated by task version and administration order — related
• Reward improves the speed of inhibitory control (SSRT) in both cancellation and restraint tasks in children and adolescents — related
• SSRT was faster in the cancellation task than in the restraint task, supporting inhibition as a non-unitary construct — related