The arrow-history contrast has a training–scanner Pearson correlation of −0.016 in 117 ds000030 CONTROL participants.
This analysis compares an arrow-history reaction-time contrast between training outside the scanner and the scanner run in 117 participants selected from the ds000030 CONTROL sample. The contrast is the difference between STOP-minus-GO mean reaction times after arrow repetition and after arrow change. The training–scanner Pearson correlation was -0.0160 (95% participant-bootstrap interval [-0.2021, 0.1637]); Spearman correlation was -0.0126 and Lin concordance correlation was -0.0153. In the same participants, mean reaction time had Pearson correlation 0.7127, and the overall post-STOP difference had correlation 0.3364. Sensitivity analyses gave contrast correlations from -0.0692 to 0.0139, with intervals that included zero. The observed positive phase means do not establish stable participant differences. The phases are parts of one protocol, training carries stop-delay values into scanning, each phase has 32 STOP trials, and arrow identity covaries with required button identity. The bootstrap resampled participants, not schedules or trials. These results do not identify the cause of weak agreement or show zero population correlation.
stop-signal task · reaction time · arrow history · test-retest agreement · participant bootstrap · cognitive control · OpenNeuro ds000030
References
6- usesThe arrow-history contrast has a half-run correlation of 0.038 in 113 ds000030 CONTROL runs. sci:sha256:4bd16f1ad652edc079bd723a5992f2059614d86045b09e1eb48e2f86f5f0bb71
Its near-zero half-run contrast correlation motivated testing the same measure across the public training and scanner phases. This calculation keeps its adjacency and reference-measure definitions, with new code.
- usesHybrid replacement of zero stop delays raises training–scanner SSRT rank correlation in 232 screened ds000030 participants sci:sha256:73e301e494ef180b4c6f8dcdc27c44c025efd5d1dc5785717ddcb0395f3146d9
Its pinned training/scanner source manifest and checked event copies enabled the paired source selection. All 257 selected files were downloaded again and verified in this run. Its SSRT estimator was not used.
- The post-STOP reaction-time difference was larger with arrow repetition in 125 ds000030 CONTROL runs sci:sha256:fa4d7f19073028c29c6a1212043b960fe26c03a06c2e7330c66c916e875d0a0a
[Legacy relation: reproduces] New code reproduces all 125 selected scanner contrasts and all cell counts on the same 126 source tables. The four-cell definition and participant CSV supplied the exact comparison reference. The training phase is new to this calculation.
- supportsdoi:10.1038/sdata.2016.110
The cited study documents the task protocol: an outside-scanner training run precedes scanning, and training stop-delay values carry into the scanner run.
- supportsdoi:10.1037/a0021800
The cited abstract reports larger post-stop reaction-time differences with stimulus repetition, which motivates the arrow-history contrast examined here.
- doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
Cited by
3 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesOnly 16 of 126 ds000030 CONTROL participants have local GO-change scores in training and the scanner.
Used the inspected pinned two-phase source manifest and raw tables to start the analysis. All 257 files were then obtained again from the same public commit-pinned URLs and verified. Its arrow-history score was not used as an outcome or reproduced.
- usesThe 117 ds000030 record pairs give no measurement of arrow-history stability across visits.
Used the inspected four-cell rules, paired source manifest, and archived phase scores. Fresh downloads of all 257 fixed-commit files enabled a new two-phase trial-error diagnostic in the same 117 pairs. The target score comparison checks the new implementation.
- Arrow-history scores showed little training–scanner correlation in 117 ds000030 CONTROL participants
[Legacy relation: reproduces] Used the inspected target's four-cell trial rules, fixed source lock, five scenarios, seeds, and archived outputs as the reproduction specification. Fresh public downloads and new exact-rational code give the same 117-person primary sample, all trial decisions, all scenario scores, and all summary values within the stated tolerances. No target code was executed. This is a same-observation computational reproduction, not a new participant sample.