Children adopt a more cautious response strategy (higher boundary separation) when intermittent stop trials are introduced¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Boundary separation was significantly higher during the stop-signal task than the no-tone task (BF10 = 6,221.78; d = 0.38). → Fosco 2019

Evidence¶

Fosco 2019¶

Fosco, W. D., Kofler, M. J., Alderson, R. M., Tarle, S. J., Raiker, J. S., & Sarver, D. E. (2019). Inhibitory Control and Information Processing in ADHD: Comparing the Dual Task and Performance Adjustment Hypotheses. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0504-9

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Bayesian mixed ANOVA (Group x Task) in a sample of 144 children aged 8-13. The Tier 2 analysis found "boundary separation was significantly higher during the stop-signal relative to no-tone task" with d = 0.38, consistent with the performance adjustment hypothesis.

"As shown in Figure 1, boundary separation was significantly higher during the stop-signal relative to no-tone task (BF10 = 6,221.78; d = 0.38)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Children with and without ADHD show equivalent increases in response caution when stop trials are introduced — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Introducing intermittent stop trials does not change processing speed (drift rate) in children with or without ADHD — related
• Go-trial response times are slower during the stop-signal task than the no-tone task, with no diagnostic group difference — related
• Non-decision time (encoding/motor speed) is unchanged when inhibitory demands are introduced — related
• Equivalent performance-adjustment effects hold when clinical control and neurotypical children are analyzed separately — related
• Pre-adolescent children already exhibit proactive inhibitory control, slowing responses as stop-signal probability increases — related
• Reactive inhibition speed and accuracy improve with age between 8 and 11 years, while proactive response slowing does not increase with age — related
• Reward does not alter the speed or variability of response execution in either stop signal task — related