Response inhibition and psychopathology: A meta-analysis of go/no-go task performance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Response inhibition, defined as the ability to withhold a response, is considered to be a core deficit in various mental illnesses. Measures of response inhibition have been used to define functional deficits, as markers of genetic risk, in neuroimaging studies, and for diagnostic purposes in these disorders. However, the magnitude of the deficit across psychopathologies has not been systematically assessed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of performance on commonly used measures of the ability to withhold a response: go/no-go task, Conners' continuous performance task (CCPT), and sustained attention to response task (SART). The primary variable of interest in each of these tasks was commission errors (CE), which provides an index of one's ability to correctly withhold a response. In addition, we examined omission errors (OE) which are an index of sustained attention; and mean reaction time (RT; MRT). Three-hundred and 18 studies in 11 different psychiatric disorders met inclusion criteria. Weighted mean effect sizes (ESs) were calculated to measure the magnitude of the deficit. In general, we found low-to-medium ESs for commission errors ranging from g = -0.10 for anxiety disorder to medium ESs of g = 0.52 for bipolar disorder. Small-to-medium deficits in withholding were found in various disorders. Results indicate that deficits in withholding are insufficiently sensitive or specific to be used individually as a diagnostic measure or biomarker in most disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".