Go/No-Go
Participants respond as fast as possible to frequent 'go' stimuli and withhold the response to rare 'no-go' stimuli. Because go trials predominate, responding becomes prepotent; correctly withholding on a no-go trial requires inhibitory control. Responses on no-go trials (commission errors) index failures of inhibition; the speed of go responses and the rate of go-trial omissions index the prepotent tendency and sustained attention.
- Defining contrast
commission-error-rate (selective-suppression)- Family
- go-no-go
- Human review
- sourced — unreviewed
- Executable test
- verify:task — an implementation can be driven and judged against this spec
- Schema
- spec version 2
- Catalog entry
- Go/No-Go 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpt-cities-mountains | NCCR / jsPsych | conforms | |
| demos/go_nogo | Pavlovia / PsychoJS | conforms | a newer PsychoJS (2023.2.3); the integration is not congruency-specific |
Origin reference
- Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2007). A model of the go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3), 389-413. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.389
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.