title: A model of the go/no-go task.
abstract: In this article, the first explicit, theory-based comparison of 2-choice and go/no-go variants of 3 experimental tasks is presented. Prior research has questioned whether the underlying core-information processing is different for the 2 variants of a task or whether they differ mostly in response demands. The authors examined 4 different diffusion models for the go/no-go variant of each task along with a standard diffusion model for the 2-choice variant (R. Ratcliff, 1978). The 2-choice and the go/no-go models were fit to data from 4 lexical decision experiments, 1 numerosity discrimination experiment, and 1 recognition memory experiment, each with 2-choice and go/no-go variants. The models that assumed an implicit decision criterion for no-go responses produced better fits than models that did not. The best model was one in which only response criteria and the nondecisional components of processing changed between the 2 variants, supporting the view that the core information on which decisions are based is not different between them.
authors: Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614, US. pgomez1@depaul.edu
authors: Pablo
authors: P
authors: Gomez
authors: Roger
authors: R
authors: Ratcliff
authors: Manuel
authors: M
authors: Perea
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003657:Decision Making; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D015233:Models, Statistical; D011336:Probability; D011930:Reaction Time; D011932:Reading; D012660:Semantics
references: Percept Psychophys. 2003 May;65(4):523-35
references: 12812276
references: J Neurosci. 1998 Sep 15;18(18):7519-34
references: 9736670
references: Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):333-67
references: 15065913
references: Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999 Oct;146(4):465-72
references: 10550497
references: J Neurophysiol. 2001 Apr;85(4):1673-85
references: 11287490
references: Vision Res. 2004 Jun;44(12):1297-320
references: 15066392
references: Percept Psychophys. 1994 Feb;55(2):190-203
references: 8036100
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Aug;24(4):1162-87
references: 9706712
references: Psychol Aging. 2004 Jun;19(2):278-89
references: 15222821
references: Percept Psychophys. 1995 Aug;57(6):875-90
references: 7651811
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):438-81
references: 12412886
references: J Exp Psychol. 1961 Jan;61:23-9
references: 13707272
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jul 6;96(14):8301-6
references: 10393989
references: Nat Neurosci. 1998 Aug;1(4):275-7
references: 10195159
references: Hum Brain Mapp. 2001 Mar;12(3):131-43
references: 11170305
references: Psychol Rev. 1985 Apr;92(2):212-25
references: 3991839
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1969;30:412-31
references: 5811531
references: Neurosci Res. 1993 Dec;18(3):249-52
references: 8127474
references: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001 Mar;239(3):173-81
references: 11405066
references: Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995 Jan;96(1):36-43
references: 7530187
references: Neuropsychologia. 1990;28(7):635-46
references: 2215875
references: Psychol Rev. 1999 Apr;106(2):261-300
references: 10378014
references: Psychol Rev. 2004 Jan;111(1):159-82
references: 14756592
references: Psychol Aging. 2003 Sep;18(3):415-29
references: 14518805
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Feb;26(1):166-83
references: 10696612
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993 Aug;19(4):744-74
references: 8409857
references: Psychophysiology. 2004 Jan;41(1):157-60
references: 14693011
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Mar;128(1):32-55
references: 10100390
references: Psychol Rev. 1996 Jul;103(3):518-65
references: 8759046
references: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2002 Dec;2(4):300-17
references: 12641175
references: Percept Psychophys. 2003 Feb;65(2):273-86
references: 12713243
references: Brain Lang. 1988 Jul;34(2):302-14
references: 3401696
references: Percept Psychophys. 1992 May;51(5):437-42
references: 1594433
references: Psychol Bull. 1979 May;86(3):446-61
references: 451109
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Feb;26(1):127-40
references: 10696609
references: Cortex. 1975 Mar;11(1):8-16
references: 1149469
references: Cogn Psychol. 2006 Nov;53(3):195-237
references: 16890214
references: Brain Lang. 1982 Jan;15(1):143-60
references: 6184120
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Jun;9(2):278-91
references: 12120790
references: Mem Cognit. 2002 Jan;30(1):34-45
references: 11958353
references: Psychol Rev. 1993 Jul;100(3):432-59
references: 8356185
references: J Math Psychol. 2000 Sep;44(3):408-463
references: 10973778
references: J Mem Lang. 2008 Jan;58(1):140-159
references: 19122740
references: Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):238-55
references: 3375400
references: Psychol Rev. 2001 Apr;108(2):370-92
references: 11381834
references: Psychol Aging. 2001 Jun;16(2):323-41
references: 11405319
references: Mem Cognit. 2003 Jan;31(1):100-13
references: 12699147
references: Hum Brain Mapp. 2001 Feb;12(2):100-9
references: 11169874
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Apr;11(2):353-61
references: 15260205