A model of the go/no-go task.
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.
Gomez
Pablo
P
Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614, US. pgomez1@depaul.edu
Ratcliff
Roger
R
Perea
Manuel
M
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
Percept Psychophys. 2003 May;65(4):523-35
12812276
J Neurosci. 1998 Sep 15;18(18):7519-34
9736670
Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):333-67
15065913
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999 Oct;146(4):465-72
10550497
J Neurophysiol. 2001 Apr;85(4):1673-85
11287490
Vision Res. 2004 Jun;44(12):1297-320
15066392
Percept Psychophys. 1994 Feb;55(2):190-203
8036100
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Aug;24(4):1162-87
9706712
Psychol Aging. 2004 Jun;19(2):278-89
15222821
Percept Psychophys. 1995 Aug;57(6):875-90
7651811
Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):438-81
12412886
J Exp Psychol. 1961 Jan;61:23-9
13707272
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jul 6;96(14):8301-6
10393989
Nat Neurosci. 1998 Aug;1(4):275-7
10195159
Hum Brain Mapp. 2001 Mar;12(3):131-43
11170305
Psychol Rev. 1985 Apr;92(2):212-25
3991839
Acta Psychol (Amst). 1969;30:412-31
5811531
Neurosci Res. 1993 Dec;18(3):249-52
8127474
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001 Mar;239(3):173-81
11405066
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995 Jan;96(1):36-43
7530187
Neuropsychologia. 1990;28(7):635-46
2215875
Psychol Rev. 1999 Apr;106(2):261-300
10378014
Psychol Rev. 2004 Jan;111(1):159-82
14756592
Psychol Aging. 2003 Sep;18(3):415-29
14518805
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Feb;26(1):166-83
10696612
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993 Aug;19(4):744-74
8409857
Psychophysiology. 2004 Jan;41(1):157-60
14693011
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Mar;128(1):32-55
10100390
Psychol Rev. 1996 Jul;103(3):518-65
8759046
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2002 Dec;2(4):300-17
12641175
Percept Psychophys. 2003 Feb;65(2):273-86
12713243
Brain Lang. 1988 Jul;34(2):302-14
3401696
Percept Psychophys. 1992 May;51(5):437-42
1594433
Psychol Bull. 1979 May;86(3):446-61
451109
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Feb;26(1):127-40
10696609
Cortex. 1975 Mar;11(1):8-16
1149469
Cogn Psychol. 2006 Nov;53(3):195-237
16890214
Brain Lang. 1982 Jan;15(1):143-60
6184120
Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Jun;9(2):278-91
12120790
Mem Cognit. 2002 Jan;30(1):34-45
11958353
Psychol Rev. 1993 Jul;100(3):432-59
8356185
J Math Psychol. 2000 Sep;44(3):408-463
10973778
J Mem Lang. 2008 Jan;58(1):140-159
19122740
Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):238-55
3375400
Psychol Rev. 2001 Apr;108(2):370-92
11381834
Psychol Aging. 2001 Jun;16(2):323-41
11405319
Mem Cognit. 2003 Jan;31(1):100-13
12699147
Hum Brain Mapp. 2001 Feb;12(2):100-9
11169874
Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Apr;11(2):353-61
15260205