The post-STOP reaction-time difference was larger with arrow repetition in 125 ds000030 CONTROL runs
In 125 eligible scanner runs from OpenNeuro ds000030 version 1.0.0, the equal-participant mean post-STOP minus post-successful-GO reaction-time (RT) difference was 48.7814 ms for repeated arrows and 31.4179 ms for changed arrows. The paired difference was 17.3635 ms (participant percentile-bootstrap 95% interval: 6.0593–28.5146 ms); 71 participant differences were above zero and 54 were below zero. This descriptive association uses recorded behavior from one run per participant and does not use brain images. It is not a causal result or a new-mechanism or priority claim. The selection was diagnosis == CONTROL and stopsignal == 1. The source lock contains 131 immutable S3 object versions, whose URLs, version identifiers, sizes, and SHA-256 checksums are recorded in source_manifest.json. The four-cell analysis required at least three trials per cell; sub-10527 had no SuccessfulGo rows and could not meet the rule. The participant bootstrap used 10,000 selections with replacement and seed 20261009. Its interval assumes independent participant records and is conditional on the reused source schedules. Sensitivity estimates and intervals are reported in the main text. The failed-STOP interval includes zero; STOP-specific analyses used different participants and trials and do not establish a difference between stopping outcomes. The result does not establish physical tone delivery, mechanism, or biological causality. Trial imbalance, timing, response history, and other confounding remain possible. The report preserves retrieval, arithmetic, synthetic-code, and relocation checks while stating their limits; these are not independent scientific verification.
stop-signal task · reaction time · stimulus repetition · cognitive control · behavioral analysis · bootstrap · OpenNeuro · ds000030
References
4- Recorded response correctness differs from stopping accuracy in ds000030 controls sci:sha256:9b3fcb076a7cf7af472ffb90250092828b37dc26aba2b60e9201ee1acb133d80
[Legacy relation: reproduces] This work uses the 131 source-file versions and sample rule from the earlier result. New code gives the same 125 participant identifiers, mean RT difference, and bootstrap interval bounds.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds000030.v1.0.0
The recorded event files and metadata for the analyzed source selection are from ds000030 version 1.0.0; the exact 131-file source lock is documented in source_manifest.json.
- doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.110
- doi:10.1037/a0021800
Cited by
5 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesNone of 126 ds000030 CONTROL runs has three selected triplets in each of four arrow and button history cells.
The 131-file source manifest and four-cell sample rule give exact observations and a common sample for the new history counts.
- usesThe arrow-history contrast has a half-run correlation of 0.038 in 113 ds000030 CONTROL runs.
The source manifest, four-cell selection rules, and participant output supplied exact inputs and a computational check. New code calculated the half-run correlations.
- usesThe two-sided model estimates a 15.27 ms third-GO difference in 125 ds000030 control runs
Its arrow result helped select the arrow-repetition term in the adjusted model.
- usesThe fourth GO before STOP has a 34.18 ms longer mean RT than the last GO in 53 selected ds000030 participants.
Used the reported arrow-transition dependence to define the descriptive arrow-repeat profile for each reference and post-STOP position. The new analysis does not fit or reproduce the prior interaction.
- The arrow-history contrast has a training–scanner Pearson correlation of −0.016 in 117 ds000030 CONTROL participants.
[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.