The role of cognitive interference in reaction time: Insights from Go/No-Go and Flanker tasks

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Neuroscience Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: A key characteristic of human information processing is goal orientation, which allows us to focus on specific aspects of a current stimulus while ignoring others based on our cognitive goals. Previous studies have shown that Reaction Time (RT) can be influenced by interference. This study aims to investigate this effect using the Flanker paradigm and explain how different interference types impact RT and accuracy. Also, this study examined RT for correct and incorrect responses.
 
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 110 female students from schools in Mashhad City, Iran, during the 2022-2023 academic year. Participants performed both the Go/No-Go task (which lacks interference) and the Flanker task (which involves four types of interference). The researcher analyzed the mean RT for both tasks, the impact of interference on RT and accuracy, and the RT for correct and incorrect responses.
 
Results: Findings confirmed that interference in the Flanker task affects RT. It has been found that incongruent interference significantly impacts both accuracy and RT (P< 0.05), and incorrect responses were slower than correct ones, likely due to delays as the brain reassesses and experiences conflict about the correct response.
 
Conclusion: The study demonstrates that both the presence and type of interference affect reaction time and accuracy, with reaction time being longer for incorrect responses.

Keywords

References

  1. Holton E, Grohn J, Ward H, Manohar SG, O'Reilly JX, Kolling N. Goal commitment is supported by vmPFC through selective attention. Nat Hum Behav 2024; 8(7): 1351-65.
  2. Getzmann S, Reiser J, Gajewski P, Schneider D, Karthaus M, Wascher E. Cognitive aging at work and in daily life—a narrative review on challenges due to age-related changes in central cognitive functions. Front Psychol 2023; 14: 1232344.
  3. Aponte EA, Stephan KE, Heinzle J. Switch costs in inhibitory control and voluntary behaviour: A computational study of the antisaccade task. Eur J Neurosci 2019; 50(7): 3205-20.
  4. O'Brien EL, Torres GE, Neupert SD. Cognitive interference in the context of daily stressors, daily awareness of age-related change, and general aging attitudes. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2021; 76(5): 920-9.
  5. Mar K, Townes P, Pechlivanoglou P, Arnold P, Schachar R. Obsessive compulsive disorder and response inhibition: Meta-analysis of the stop-signal task. J Psychopathol Clin Sci 2022; 131(2): 152.
  6. Echiverri-Cohen A, Spierer L, Perez M, Kulon M, Ellis MD, Craske M. Randomized-controlled trial of response inhibition training for individuals with PTSD and impaired response inhibition. Behav Res Ther 2021; 143: 103885.
  7. Liu F, Chi X, Yu D. Reduced inhibition control ability in children with ADHD due to coexisting learning disorders: an fNIRS study. Front Psychiatry 2024;15:1326341.
  8. Heim S, Ihssen N, Hasselhorn M, Keil A. Early adolescents show sustained susceptibility to cognitive interference by emotional distractors. Cogn Emot 2013; 27(4): 696-706.
  9. Spiegel J, Goodrich J, Morris B, Osborne C, Lonigan C. Relations between executive functions and academic outcomes in elementary school children: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 2021; 147: 329-51.
  10. Tsubomi H, Watanabe K. Development of visual working memory and distractor resistance in relation to academic performance. J Exp Child Psychol 2017; 154: 98-112.
  11. Sun X, Li L, Mo C, Mo L, Wang R, Ding G. Dissociating the neural substrates for inhibition and shifting in domain-genral cognitive control. Eur J Neurosci 2019; 50: 1920-31.
  12. Arafat MY, Abedin MJ, Rickta JF, Mukta FTJ, Islam MR. Comparison of reaction time ability for different forms of stimuli among various athletes. Saudi journal of sports medicine 2022; 22(3): 113-16.
  13. Jain A, Bansal R, Kumar A, Singh KD. A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2015; 5(2): 124-7.
  14. Pawar NM, Velaga NR. Modelling the influence of time pressure on reaction time of drivers. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 2020; 72: 1-22.
  15. Hardwick RM, Forrence AD, Costello MG, Zackowski K, Haith AM. Age-related increases in reaction time result from slower preparation, not delayed initiation. J Neurophysiol 2022; 128(3): 582-92.
  16. Roopashree K, Ghosh S, Nandini C. Effects of age, gender, and anthropometric measurements on simple visual and auditory reaction time in healthy Indian adults. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2022; 12(1): 60-64.
  17. Chandio Y, Interrante V, Anwar FM. Reaction time as a proxy for presence in mixed reality with distraction. arXiv preprint arXiv 2024; 241105275.
  18. Kaewken U. Driving distraction effects on reaction time in simulated driving. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago; 2016.
  19. Heuer H, Seegelke C, Wühr P. Staggered onsets of processing relevant and irrelevant stimulus features produce different dynamics of congruency effects. J Cogn 2023; 6(1): 8.
  20. Grégoire L, Poulin-Charronnat B, Perruchet P. Stroop interference depends also on the level of automaticity of the to-be-interfered process. Acta Psychologica 2019; 197: 143-52.
  21. Malapetsa C. Stroop effect with visual and auditory stimuli: Five tasks show the differences in reaction times when auditory and/or visual linguistic stimuli are presented against an image. [cited 2020]. Available from: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1467345/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  22. Wendt M, Luna-Rodriguez A. Conflict-frequency affects flanker interference: Role of stimulus-ensemble-specific practiceand flanker-response contingencies. Exp Psychol 2009; 56(3): 206-17.
  23. Lempke LB, Johnson RS, Schmidt JD, Lynall RC. Clinical versus Functional Reaction Time: Implications for Postconcussion Management. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2020; 52(8): 1650-7.
  24. Jacoby LL, Lindsay DS, Hessels S. Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychol Bull Rev 2003; 10(3): 638-44.
  25. Dubravac M, Roebers CM, Meier B. Age-related qualitative differences in post-error cognitive control adjustments. Br J Dev Psychol 2022; 40(2): 287-305.
  26. Kinder KT, Buss AT, Tas AC. Tracking flanker task dynamics: Evidence for continuous attentional selectivity. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2022; 48(7): 771-81.
  27. Mueller ST, Piper BJ. The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) and PEBL Test Battery. J Neurosci Methods 2014; 222: 250-9.
  28. Stins JF, Polderman JC, Boomsma DI, de Geus EJ. Conditional accuracy in response interference tasks: Evidence from the Eriksen flanker task and the spatial conflict task. Adv Cogn Psychol 2008; 3(3): 409-17.
  29. Consiglio W, Driscoll P, Witte M, Berg WP. Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a braking response. Accid Anal Prev 2003; 35(4): 495-500.
  30. Frej DP. Phone use by pedestrians-pilot studies. The archives of automotive engineering 2024; 104(2): 5-18.
  31. Files BT, Pollard KA, Oiknine AH, Khooshabeh P, Passaro AD. Correct response negativity may reflect subjective value of reaction time under regulatory fit in a speed-rewarded task. Psychophysiol 2021; 58(9): e13856.
  32. Schultz W. Recent advances in understanding the role of phasic dopamine activity. F1000Res 2019; 8: F1000 Faculty Rev-1680.
  33. van Veen V, Carter CS. Error detection, correction, and prevention in the brain: A brief review of data and theories. Clin EEG Neurosci 2006; 37(4): 330-5.
  34. McLean CS, Ouyang B, Ditterich J. Second guessing in perceptual decision-making. J Neurosci 2020; 40(26): 5078-89.
  35. Dubravac M, Roebers CM, Meier B. Different temporal dynamics after conflicts and errors in children and adults. PLoS One 2020; 15(8): e0238221.
Fundamentals of Mental Health
Volume 27, Issue 2
2025
Pages 93-99

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics