The Go-NoGo task measures a component of cognitive control called response inhibition. The computerized task consists of 240 trials in which participants see a stimulus printed on the screen and they are asked to vary their response according to the stimulus color. In the more frequent 180 “Go” trials, participants are instructed to respond by pressing a button when they see green text on the screen displaying the word “press.” In the less frequent 60 NoGo trials, in contrast, participants are instructed not to respond when they see red text on the screen displaying the word “press.” A predominant response is established to respond because participants implicitly learn that Go trials are three times as likely to appear on any given trial. Therefore cognitive control is needed to carry out response inhibition on NoGo trials to overcome the automatic tendency. The main dependent behavioral measures in Go-NoGo tasks are response time and the commission error rate (making an incorrect “Go” response on “No-Go” trials); fewer commission errors signify better response inhibition. The Go-NoGo fMRI paradigm utilizes this same task to measure activation of participants’ cognitive control circuit (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, dorsal parietal cortex [DPC], and posterior cingulate gyrus), as well as the functional connectivity among these regions.
The Go-NoGo paradigm is a lab-based assay that has been established as a robust assessment of the cognitive control circuit relevant to regulation of cognitive functions (Korgaonkar, Cooper, Williams, Grieve, 2012; Falconer, Allen, Felmingham, Williams & Bryant, 2013; Falconer et al., 2008). Evidence from lab-based behavioral proxies (i.e., the Go-NoGo task) of this neural circuit has been linked to behavior change outcomes: inhibitory control effectively moderates the impact of automatic affective reactions on eating behavior (Hoffman, Friese, & Roefs, 2009). Thus, effortful inhibitory control in daily life can allow people to decrease their unhealthy habits and consequently engage in more healthful behaviors (Rothman, Sheeran, & Wood, 2009).
[+] PMCID, PUBMED ID, or CITATION
Text Citation: Falconer, E., Allen, A., Felmingham, K.L., Williams, L.M., & Bryant, R.A. (2013) Inhibitory neural activity predicts response to cognitive-behavioral therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74, 895–901.
Text Citation: Falconer, E., Bryant, R., Felmingham, K.L., Kemp, A.H., Gordon, E., Peduto, A., Williams, L.M. (2008). The neural networks of inhibitory control in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Psychiatry Neuroscience, 33, 413–22.
Text Citation: Hoffman, W., Friese, M., Roefs, A. (2009). Three ways to resist temptation: The independent contributions of executive attention, inhibitory control, and affect regulation to the impulse control of eating behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol., 45, 431-435.
Text Citation: Korgaonkar, M.S., Cooper, N.J., Williams, L.M., & Grieve, S.M. (2012). Mapping inter- regional connectivity of the entire cortex to characterize major depressive disorder: a whole-brain diffusion tensor imaging tractography study. Neuroreport, 23(9), 566-571.
Text Citation: Rothman, A.J., Sheeran, P., Wood, W. (2009). Reflective and automatic processes in the initiation and maintenance of dietary change. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38(1), S4-17.
This measure has not been measured yet.
This measure has not been influenced yet.
This measure has not been validated yet.
The Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program seeks to promote basic research on the initiation, personalization and maintenance of behavior change. By integrating work across disciplines, this effort will lead to an improved understanding of the underlying principles of behavior change. The SOBC program aims to implement a mechanisms-focused, experimental medicine approach to behavior change research and to develop the tools required to implement such an approach. The experimental medicine approach involves: identifying an intervention target, developing measures to permit verification of the target, engaging the target through experimentation or intervention, and testing the degree to which target engagement produces the desired behavior change.
Within the SOBC Measures Repository, researchers have access to measures of mechanistic targets that have been (or are in the processing of being) validated by SOBC Research Network Members and other experts in the field. The SOBC Validation Process includes three important stages of evaluation for each proposed measure: Identification, Measurement, and Influence.
The first stage of validation requires a measure to be Identified within the field; there must be theoretical support for the specific measure of the proposed mechanistic target or potential mechanism of behavior change. This evidence may include references for the proposed measure, or theoretical support for the construct that the proposed measure is intended to assess. The second stage of validation requires demonstration that the level and change in level of the chosen mechanistic target can be Measured with the proposed measure (assay). For example, if the proposed measure is a questionnaire, the score on the measure should indicate the activity of the target process, and it must have strong psychometric properties. The third stage of validation requires demonstration that the measure can be Influenced; there must be evidence that the measured target is malleable and responsive to manipulation. Evidence relating to each stage includes at least one peer-reviewed publication or original data presentation (if no peer-reviewed research is available to support the claim) and is evaluated by SOBC Research Network Members and experts in the field.
Once a measure has gone through these three stages, it will then either be Validated or Not validated according to SOBC Research Network standards. If a measure is Validated, then change in the measured target was reliably associated with Behavior Change. If a measure is Not validated, then change in the measured target was not reliably associated with Behavior Change. Why would we share measures that are not validated? The SOBC Research Network values open, rigorous, and transparent research. Our goal is to make meaningful progress and develop replicable and effective interventions in behavior change science. Therefore, the SOBC sees value in providing other researchers in the field with information regarding measures that work and measures that fall short for specific targets. Further, a measure that is not validated for one target in one population may be validated in another target or population.
Want to learn more? For any questions regarding the SOBC Validation Process or Measures Repository, please email email@example.com.
Has the mechanism been identified as a potential target for behavior change? This section summarizes theoretical support for the mechanism.
Have the psychometric properties of this measure been assessed? This section includes information such as content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
Has a study manipulation led to change in the mechanism? This section addresses evidence that this measure is modifiable by experimental manipulation or clinical intervention.
Has a change in this mechanism been associated with behavior change? This section addresses empirical evidence that causing change in the measure reliably produces subsequent behavior change.