English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the stop-signal paradigm, fast responses are harder to inhibit than slow responses, so subjects must balance speed in the go task with successful stopping in the stop task. In theory, subjects achieve this balance by adjusting response thresholds for the go task, making proactive adjustments in response to instructions that indicate that relevant stop signals are likely to occur. The 5 experiments reported here tested this theoretical claim, presenting cues that indicated whether or not stop signals were relevant for the next few trials. Subjects made proactive response-strategy adjustments in each experiment: Diffusion-model fits showed that response threshold increased when participants expected stop signals to occur, slowing go responses and increasing accuracy. Furthermore, the results show that subjects can make proactive response-strategy adjustments on a trial-by-trial basis, suggesting a flexible cognitive system that can proactively adjust itself in changing environments.

Proactive adjustments of response strategies in the stop-signal paradigm.