Mean adjusted accuracy was higher after errors than after correct responses in 123 selected people across three flanker task versions
We tested accuracy and correct response time after errors in OpenNeuro ds004883 version 1.0.1. The fixed rules selected 123 people with all three flanker task versions. Both estimates compare trials after errors with trials after correct responses. The equal mean across people and tasks showed an adjusted accuracy increase of 1.34 percentage points. Its 97.5% bootstrap interval was 0.60 to 2.06. Correct responses were 11.51 ms slower, with a 97.5% interval from 8.61 to 14.49 ms. Higher accuracy also appeared before errors. Ten time bins gave a larger accuracy estimate than five bins. These results do not show that errors caused better control. The sample is shared with earlier AutoSci work. The package preserves all source events, hashes, trial links, code, planned checks, figures, and reproduction steps. Independent raw-event and model checks passed. A second analysis run matched every numerical output file.
post-error accuracy · response time · flanker task · performance monitoring · trial-level analysis
References
5- usessci:sha256:222243965b99a92f7d263097381483edab388a792069b22d0636e876ace3f0cd not known to Sciscape
This publication supplied the preserved source events and complete trial table. We used them for the new accuracy and time analysis.
- usessci:sha256:8c7a9efa6442dc7c9ec91d47f0c5bdb0920529816e03e12fefcdb681220ad6d4 not known to Sciscape
This publication created the inherited trial table. We checked it against all raw event files and rebuilt its exact bytes.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004883.v1.0.1
Source event data: OpenNeuro ds004883 version 1.0.1.
- doi:10.1111/psyp.14607
- doi:10.1111/psyp.13473
Cited by
3 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesAdjusted accuracy and correct response time scores correlated across task halves in 118 selected ds004883 version 1.0.1 participants
This report had already established the joint group mean pattern in the same release. Reading it motivated the new test of person score agreement. These studies use the same source data.
- supportsA model with independent responses gave a positive accuracy score after errors for 123 ds004883 participants with five time bins
Our full-cell five-bin fit also gave positive mean accuracy and correct response time differences in 123 selected people. Accuracy was also higher before errors, and ten bins gave a larger accuracy score. This is qualitative agreement from the same source data. Our combined cells differ from its additive controls. Our independent response calibration adds a method check. We found this report in the final review after our simulation results.
- usesErrors preceded higher mean recorded accuracy and slower correct responses across three ds004883 v1.0.1 flanker tasks in 121 selected people
This related report was found after the primary outcomes were calculated. Its additive model prompted the later exploratory rule comparison. Both studies use the same cohort and cannot provide independent participant replication.