Individual differences in stop‐related activity are inflated by the adaptive algorithm in the stop signal task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research using the Stop Signal Task employing an adaptive algorithm to accommodate individual differences often report inferior performance on the task in individuals with ADHD, OCD, and substance use disorders compared to non-clinical controls. Furthermore, individuals with deficits in inhibitory control tend to show reduced neural activity in key inhibitory regions during successful stopping. However, the adaptive algorithm systematically introduces performance-related differences in objective task difficulty that may influence the estimation of individual differences in stop-related neural activity. This report examines the effect that these algorithm-related differences have on the measurement of neural activity during the stop signal task. We compared two groups of subjects (n = 210) who differed in inhibitory ability using both a standard fMRI analysis and an analysis that resampled trials to remove the objective task difficulty confound. The results show that objective task difficulty influences the magnitude of between-group differences and that controlling for difficulty attenuates stop-related activity differences between superior and poor inhibitors. Specifically, group differences in the right inferior frontal gyrus, right middle occipital gyrus, and left inferior frontal gyrus are diminished when differences in objective task difficulty are controlled for. Also, when objective task difficulty effects are exaggerated, group differences in stop related activity emerge in other regions of the stopping network. The implications of these effects for how we interpret individual differences in activity levels are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".