Advantage of the Go/no-go Task over the Yes/no Lexical Decision Task: ERP Indexes of Parameters in the Diffusion Model

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2019 Jul 2

PMID 31260472

Citations 2

Authors

Hyeonjin Lee

Yoonhyoung Lee

Jini Tae

Youan Kwon

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Previous research findings supporting the advantages of the go/no-go choice over the yes/no choice in lexical decision task (LDT) have suggested that the go/no-go choice might require less cognitive resources in the non-decisional processes. This study aims to test such an idea using the event-related potential method. In this study, the tasks (yes/no LDT and go/no-go LDT) and word frequency (high and low) were manipulated, and the difference between the go/no-go choice and yes/no choice were examined with BP, pN, pN1, P200, N400, and P3 components that were assumed to be closely related with the various parameters in the diffusion model. The results showed that BP, pN and pN1 amplitudes reflecting the preparation stage were not differently affected by word frequency and the task type. However, ERPs after stimulus onset showed differences. The P200 amplitudes were smaller in the go/no-go task than in the yes/no task only for low-frequency words. N400 and P3 amplitudes were only affected by word frequency. The results suggest that the go/no-go task and the yes/no task differ in sub-lexical processes, which is indicated in the Tencoding parameter in the diffusion model. This study is important as it offers the first electrophysiological evidence supporting the assumption in the diffusion model that explains the advantage of the go/no-go choice over the yes/no choice.

Citing Articles

The Effect of Corrective Feedback in Basic Cognitive Tasks: A Study in Early Childhood.

Moret-Tatay C, Vaquer-Cardona E, Bernabe-Valero G, Blasco-Magraner J, Saiz-Mauleon B, Jorques-Infante M Children (Basel). 2022; 9(2).

PMID: 35204866 PMC: 8870716. DOI: 10.3390/children9020145.

Increased Neural Efficiency in Visual Word Recognition: Evidence from Alterations in Event-Related Potentials and Multiscale Entropy.

Cnudde K, van Hees S, Brown S, van der Wijk G, Pexman P, Protzner A Entropy (Basel). 2021; 23(3).

PMID: 33806539 PMC: 8002031. DOI: 10.3390/e23030304.

References

Coltheart M, Rastle K, Perry C, Langdon R, Ziegler J . DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(1):204-56. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204. View

Gomez P, Ratcliff R, Perea M . A model of the go/no-go task. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007; 136(3):389-413. PMC: 2701630. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.389. View

Carreiras M, Vergara M, Barber H . Early event-related potential effects of syllabic processing during visual word recognition. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005; 17(11):1803-17. DOI: 10.1162/089892905774589217. View

Wagenmakers E, Ratcliff R, Gomez P, McKoon G . A Diffusion Model Account of Criterion Shifts in the Lexical Decision Task. J Mem Lang. 2009; 58(1):140-159. PMC: 2330283. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.006. View

Navarro-Pardo E, Navarro-Prados A, Gamermann D, Moret-Tatay C . Differences between young and old university students on a lexical decision task: evidence through an ex-Gaussian approach. J Gen Psychol. 2014; 140(4):251-68. DOI: 10.1080/00221309.2013.817964. View

Donchin E . Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise?. Psychophysiology. 1981; 18(5):493-513. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1981.tb01815.x. View

Perea M, Gomez P, Fraga I . Masked nonword repetition effects in yes/no and go/no-go lexical decision: a test of the evidence accumulation and deadline accounts. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010; 17(3):369-74. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.3.369. View

Kwon Y, Lee Y, Nam K . The different P200 effects of phonological and orthographic syllable frequency in visual word recognition in Korean. Neurosci Lett. 2011; 501(2):117-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2011.06.060. View

Ratcliff R, Smith P, Brown S, McKoon G . Diffusion Decision Model: Current Issues and History. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016; 20(4):260-281. PMC: 4928591. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007. View

10.

Ratcliff R, Van Zandt T, McKoon G . Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. Psychol Rev. 1999; 106(2):261-300. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.106.2.261. View

11.

Gomez P, Perea M . Decomposing encoding and decisional components in visual-word recognition: a diffusion model analysis. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014; 67(12):2455-66. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2014.937447. View

12.

Pfefferbaum A, Ford J, Weller B, KOPELL B . ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1985; 60(5):423-34. DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(85)91017-x. View

13.

Perea M, Jimenez M, Gomez P . Do young readers have fast access to abstract lexical representations? Evidence from masked priming. J Exp Child Psychol. 2014; 129:140-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.09.005. View

14.

DI Russo F, Lucci G, Sulpizio V, Berchicci M, Spinelli D, Pitzalis S . Spatiotemporal brain mapping during preparation, perception, and action. Neuroimage. 2015; 126:1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.036. View

15.

Ratcliff R, Rouder J . A diffusion model account of masking in two-choice letter identification. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000; 26(1):127-40. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.26.1.127. View

16.

Perea M, Rosa E, Gomez C . The frequency effect for pseudowords in the lexical decision task. Percept Psychophys. 2005; 67(2):301-14. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206493. View

17.

Hino Y, Lupker S . Effects of word frequency and spelling-to-sound regularity in naming with and without preceding lexical decision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000; 26(1):166-83. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.26.1.166. View

18.

Moret-Tatay C, Perea M . Is the go/no-go lexical decision task preferable to the yes/no task with developing readers?. J Exp Child Psychol. 2011; 110(1):125-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.04.005. View

19.

Bartholow B, Fabiani M, Gratton G, Bettencourt B . A psychophysiological examination of cognitive processing of and affective responses to social expectancy violations. Psychol Sci. 2001; 12(3):197-204. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00336. View

20.

Hillyard S, Vogel E, Luck S . Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998; 353(1373):1257-70. PMC: 1692341. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0281. View