Figure 1
Overview of the architecture of the associative stop system (for a more detailed overview, see Verbruggen, Best, et al., 2014). There are two associative routes to activating the stop-goal; a direct pathway between the stimulus and the go/stop goal (solid lines) and an indirect pathway between the stimulus or cue and the go/stop goal that is mediated via a representation of the go/stop signal (dashed lines).
Figure 2
The left-withhold signal, right-withhold signal, left-go signal, and right go signal trial structures in Experiment 1. In this example the withhold signal is represented as a pink dot, the go signal is represented by a blue dot and the distractor is represented by a yellow dot. The dot colours were fully counter balanced across participants.
Table 1
The proportion of left withhold signal, right withhold signal, left go signal, and right go signal trials as a function of withhold/go-type in Experiment 1. Note that for the analyses, the left-withhold and right-withhold cues were averaged (withhold-consistent cues) and the left-go and the right-go cues were averaged (go-consistent cues) as these cues consistently predicted the presentation of withhold/go signals in a single location. The withhold-inconsistent and go-inconsistent cues predicted the presentation of withhold/go signals in two locations (to the left and to the right) with equal probability.
| Cue-type | No. of words | % left withhold signal | % right withhold signal | % left go signal | % right go signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Withhold-left | 12 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Withhold-right | 12 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Withhold-inconsistent | 24 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| Go-left | 16 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| Go-right | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Go-inconsistent | 32 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 50 |
[i] Note: The overall p(withhold-signal) was 0.43.
Table 2
Overview of repeated measures Analyses of Variance in Experiment 1, with cue-type (go-consistent versus go-inconsistent on go trials; withhold-consistent versus withhold-inconsistent on withhold trials) and part (1–3) as within-subjects factors. In the go RT analysis, incorrect and missed go trials were removed.
| Df1 | Df2 | Sum of squares effect | Sum of squares error | F | p | gen. η2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Go trials: go RT | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 60 | 562108.20 | 342233.78 | 49.27 | <0.001 | 0.342 |
| Cue-type | 1 | 30 | 476.52 | 5086.46 | 2.81 | 0.104 | <0.001 |
| Part by cue-type | 2 | 60 | 513.92 | 6326.63 | 2.44 | 0.099 | <0.001 |
| Go trials: p(correct) | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 60 | 0.14 | 0.29 | 13.91 | <0.001 | 0.149 |
| Cue-type | 1 | 30 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.61 | 0.440 | 0.001 |
| Part by cue-type | 2 | 60 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.887 | <0.001 |
| Go trials: p(miss) | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 60 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 29.77 | <0.001 | 0.245 |
| Cue-type | 1 | 30 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 3.31 | 0.079 | 0.002 |
| Part by cue-type | 2 | 60 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 4.04 | 0.026 | 0.006 |
| Withhold trials: p(respond|signal) | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 60 | 0.07 | 0.51 | 4.34 | 0.027 | 0.034 |
| Cue-type | 1 | 30 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 2.28 | 0.142 | <0.001 |
| Part by cue-type | 2 | 60 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 1.11 | 0.336 | <0.001 |
[i] Note: ps < 0.05 are highlighted in bold.
Figure 3
Reaction times for the correct go trials (upper panel), the probability of correct go responses (middle panel), and the probability of missed go responses (lower panel) in Experiment 1 as a function of cue-type (go-consistent, go-inconsistent) and part (1–3). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4
The probability of responding on withhold trials in Experiment 1 as a function of signal location-type (withhold-consistent, withhold-inconsistent) and part (1–3). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals. The probability of responding on withhold trials in Experiment 1 as a function of signal location-type (withhold-consistent, withhold-inconsistent) and part (1–3). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 5
Correlation between the withhold- minus go-associated expectancy ratings difference and the part 3 minus part 1 RT practice-effect.
Figure 6
The left-withhold signal, right-withhold signal, left-go signal, and right-go signal trial structures in Experiment 2.
Table 3
The proportion of left withhold signal, right withhold signal, left go signal, and right go signal trials per block as a function of cue-type in Experiment 2. Note that there were 24 words used in the experimental task in total, with two lists of 12 words which alternated on a block-by-block basis (i.e. there were 12 words per block).
| Cue-type | No. of words | % left withhold signal | % right withhold signal | % left go signal | % right go signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Withhold-left | 3 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Withhold-right | 3 | 10 | 70 | 10 | 10 |
| Go-left | 3 | 10 | 10 | 70 | 10 |
| Go right | 3 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 70 |
[i] Note: The overall p(withhold-signal) was 0.50.
Figure 7
Reaction times for the correct go trials (upper panel), the probability of missed go responses (middle panel), and the probability of responding on withhold trials (lower panel) in Experiment 2 for the go-associated items (left panels) and for the withhold-associated items (right panels) as a function of signal location-type (consistent signal location, inconsistent signal location) and part (1–3). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.
Table 4
Overview of repeated measures Analyses of Variance in Experiment 2, with withhold/go-type (withhold-associated, go-associated), signal-location (consistent signal location, inconsistent signal location), and part (1–3) as within-subjects factors. In the go RT analysis, incorrect and missed go trials were removed.
| Df1 | Df2 | Sum of squares effect | Sum of squares error | F | p | gen. η2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combined analysis | |||||||
| Go trials: go RT | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 62 | 37140.47 | 73577.01 | 15.65 | <0.001 | 0.027 |
| Withhold/go-type | 1 | 31 | 3.83 | 10330.14 | 0.01 | 0.915 | <0.001 |
| Signal-location | 1 | 31 | 148.01 | 5362.99 | 0.86 | 0.362 | <0.001 |
| Part by withhold/go-type | 2 | 62 | 311.89 | 16074.06 | 0.60 | 0.551 | <0.001 |
| Part by signal-location | 2 | 62 | 1515.16 | 19538.16 | 2.40 | 0.099 | 0.001 |
| Withhold/go-type by signal-location | 1 | 31 | 9.63 | 10247.00 | 0.03 | 0.866 | <0.001 |
| Part by withhold/go-type by signal-location | 2 | 62 | 535.26 | 26840.59 | 0.62 | 0.536 | <0.001 |
| Withhold trials: p(respond|signal) | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 62 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 2.26 | 0.112 | 0.009 |
| Withhold/go-type | 1 | 31 | <0.001 | 0.04 | 3.47 | 0.072 | 0.007 |
| Signal-location | 1 | 31 | <0.001 | 0.03 | 1.29 | 0.264 | 0.002 |
| Part by withhold/go-type | 2 | 62 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 5.54 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Part by signal-location | 2 | 62 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.98 | 0.368 | 0.003 |
| Withhold/go-type by signal-location | 1 | 31 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.58 | 0.451 | 0.001 |
| Part by withhold/go-type by signal-location | 2 | 62 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.92 | 0.402 | 0.003 |
| Withhold-associated cues only | |||||||
| Go trials: go RTs | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 62 | 17459.93 | 57184.14 | 9.47 | <0.001 | 0.024 |
| Signal-location | 1 | 31 | 41.07 | 10713.65 | 0.12 | 0.733 | <0.001 |
| Part by signal-location | 2 | 62 | 1900.69 | 37094.95 | 1.59 | 0.213 | 0.003 |
| Withhold trials: p(respond|signal) | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 62 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.97 | 0.386 | 0.006 |
| Signal-location | 1 | 31 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.916 | <0.001 |
| Part by signal-location | 2 | 62 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.63 | 0.534 | 0.005 |
| Go-associated cues only | |||||||
| Go trials: go RTs | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 62 | 19992.42 | 32466.92 | 19.09 | <0.001 | 0.030 |
| Signal-location | 1 | 31 | 116.57 | 4896.34 | 0.74 | 0.397 | <0.001 |
| Part by signal-location | 2 | 62 | 149.73 | 9283.80 | 0.50 | 0.609 | <0.001 |
| Withhold trials: p(respond|signal) | |||||||
| Part | 2 | 62 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 4.79 | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Signal-location | 1 | 31 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 1.10 | 0.302 | 0.004 |
| Part by signal-location | 2 | 62 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 1.15 | 0.320 | 0.006 |
[i] ps < 0.05 are highlighted in bold.
Figure 8
Go RTs (in ms) for the withhold- and go-associated cues as a function of percentile in Experiment 2. The two-way interaction between cue-type (withhold-associated, go-associated) and percentile (25th, 50th, 75th) was reliable, F(2, 62) = 3.52, p = 0.048, gen. η2 < 0.001. Follow-up tests showed that the main effect of cue-type was reliable in the 25th percentile (p = 0.001, gav = 0.107) but was not reliable in the 50th (p = 0.551, gav = 0.018) and 75th (p = 0.916, gav = –0.004) percentiles. Bayesian analyses also showed strong support for the alternative hypothesis of a cue-type effect in the 25th percentile (BF10 = 21.21) and moderate support for the null hypothesis of no cue-type effect in the 50th (BF10 = 0.22) and 75th (BF10 = 0.19) percentiles.