Eriksen Flanker Task
Participants make a speeded two-choice response to the identity or direction of a central target while ignoring task-irrelevant flankers that map to the same response (congruent) or the competing response (incongruent). The reaction-time and accuracy cost of incongruent flankers indexes the efficiency of selective attention and response-level conflict resolution.
- Defining contrast
flanker-effect-rt (condition-difference)- Family
- congruency
- Human review
- sourced — unreviewed
- Executable test
- verify:task — an implementation can be driven and judged against this spec
- Schema
- spec version 1
- Catalog entry
- Eriksen Flanker Task in the paradigm catalog
Where this spec stands
This record is sourced. The ladder below is the human-review axis
only — a passing executable test never moves a record up it.
sourcedLiterature-linked, drafted with LLM assistance or by a contributor, and unreviewed. The honest default.corroboratedIndependently cross-checked against the cited sources, but not signed by a named expert.expert-annotatedAll three claims attested by named experts. Derived, never self-declared.contestedA named expert disputes at least one claim. A real outcome, kept visible.
Implementations driven through this spec
| Implementation | Platform | Verdict | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| demos/eriksen_flanker | Pavlovia / PsychoJS | conforms | congruency condition logged, not inferred — the namesake paradigm validating against its own contract |
| arrow-direction-task | NCCR / jsPsych | non-conforming · contrast-not-logged | an arrow choice-RT task with no congruency manipulation — looks like a flanker, isn't |
Origin reference
- Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149. doi:10.3758/bf03203267
Review this specification
Three separable claims: does the contrast identify the paradigm, is it a defensible measure of the named construct, and are the psychometric numbers correctly conditioned? Attest one, contest another — a split outcome is a real result.