Response inhibition is essential for navigating everyday life. Its derailment is considered integral to numerous neurological and psychiatric disorders, and more generally, to a wide range of behavioral and health problems. Response-inhibition efficiency furthermore correlates with treatment outcome in some of these conditions. The stop-signal task is an essential tool to determine how quickly response inhibition is implemented. Despite its apparent simplicity, there are many features (ranging from task design to data analysis) that vary across studies in ways that can easily compromise the validity of the obtained results. Our goal is to facilitate a more accurate use of the stop-signal task. To this end, we provide 12 easy-to-implement consensus recommendations and point out the problems that can arise when they are not followed. Furthermore, we provide user-friendly open-source resources intended to inform statistical-power considerations, facilitate the correct implementation of the task, and assist in proper data analysis.
Prominent theories suggest that compulsive behaviors, characteristic of obsessive-compulsive disorder and addiction, are driven by shared deficits in goal-directed control, which confers vulnerability for developing rigid habits. However, recent studies have shown that deficient goal-directed control accompanies several disorders, including those without an obvious compulsive element. Reasoning that this lack of clinical specificity might reflect broader issues with psychiatric diagnostic categories, we investigated whether a dimensional approach would better delineate the clinical manifestations of goal-directed deficits. Using large-scale online assessment of psychiatric symptoms and neurocognitive performance in two independent general-population samples, we found that deficits in goal-directed control were most strongly associated with a symptom dimension comprising compulsive behavior and intrusive thought. This association was highly specific when compared to other non-compulsive aspects of psychopathology. These data showcase a powerful new methodology and highlight the potential of a dimensional, biologically-grounded approach to psychiatry research.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11305.001
Electroencephalogram (EEG) data are typically contaminated with artifacts (e.g., by eye movements). The effect of artifacts can be attenuated by deleting data with amplitudes over a certain value, for example. Independent component analysis (ICA) separates EEG data into neural activity and artifact; once identified, artifactual components can be deleted from the data. Often, artifact rejection algorithms require supervision (e.g., training using canonical artifacts). Many artifact rejection methods are time consuming when applied to high density EEG data. We describe FASTER (Fully Automated Statistical Thresholding for EEG artifact Rejection). Parameters were estimated for various aspects of data (e.g., channel variance) in both the EEG time-series and in the independent components of the EEG: outliers were detected and removed. FASTER was tested on both simulated EEG (n=47) and real EEG (n=47) data on 128-, 64-, and 32-scalp electrode arrays. Faster was compared to supervised artifact detection by experts and to a variant of the Statistical Control for Dense Arrays of Sensors (SCADS) method. FASTER had > 90% sensitivity and specificity for detection of contaminated channels, eye movement and EMG artifacts, linear trends and white noise.FASTER generally had > 60% sensitivity and specificity for detection of contaminated epochs, vs. 0.15% for SCADS. The variance in the ERP baseline, a measure of noise, was significantly lower for FASTER than either the supervised or SCADS methods. ERP amplitude did not differ significantly between FASTER and the supervised approach.
Most analyses of reaction time (RT) data
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.