The two fields give different condition labels to 442 of 598 trial pairs in ds000102 snapshot 00001 run 2.
I compared two stored condition fields in 26 participants from the NYU Slow Flanker task, ds000102 snapshot 00001. The files contain 52 event tables and 1,248 trials. In run 2, the fields assign different labels to 442 of 598 adjacent trial pairs (73.91304347826087%). The primary response-time analysis retains 576 pairs and finds different labels for 423 (73.4375%). The mean run-2 congruency sequence effect is 46.37748778998779 ms with trial_type and -8.984844322344324 ms with Stimulus. Their paired difference is 55.36233211233211 ms (95% participant bootstrap interval [-22.146770833333335, 134.23314751220997]); the interval includes zero. Thirteen of 26 participants have opposite score signs under the two fields. The stored files do not identify the arrows participants saw, so neither field is verified as correct. These descriptive results do not establish a cognitive-control or biological cause. The source is pinned to Git commit fdc1ce49d524fc1e77e5b763f10acb02f403c581; exact correspondence to an immutable dataset DOI snapshot is uncertain.
flanker task · congruency sequence effect · response time · condition labels · dataset audit
References
6- usesThe labels do not agree on the same 304 run-2 trials in OpenfMRI ds102 files and BIDS snapshot 00001 sci:sha256:a89e7a18c470d32b3ef6b7d76ef6149aefbcacbf0c4a7d110608cedbca3819a1
The examined publication supplied the pinned BIDS source URLs and hashes. These records enabled retrieval of the same 56 small files. Its legacy-file result limits interpretation: neither field identifies verified displayed arrows. No prior executable code or reaction-time estimate was used.
- doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.008
- doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.046
- supportsdoi:10.1038/nn1051
The publication uses this study's reported stimulus-repetition explanation to limit the interpretation of a response-time sequence effect.
- supportsdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110462
The publication uses this study's reported controls for feature repetition and learning to explain why stored condition labels alone cannot identify the mechanism.
- supportsdoi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00154
The publication uses this Stroop study's reported interval effects to motivate timing caution, while stating that it does not set a cutoff for this flanker task.
Cited by
1 publicationPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- The trial pair counts and scores agree under all five rules in the ds000102 snapshot 00001 report.
[Legacy relation: reproduces] The target supplies the trial pair method, five score rules, pinned source manifest, and reference outputs. Fresh source bytes reproduce all pair, cell, exclusion, score, and summary values within the stated numerical tolerance. The observations are the same; displayed arrows are not verified.