IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v14y2023i1d10.1038_s41467-023-37777-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calibration of cognitive tests to address the reliability paradox for decision-conflict tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Talira Kucina

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Lindsay Wells

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Ian Lewis

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Kristy Salas

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Amelia Kohl

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Matthew A. Palmer

    (University of Tasmania)

  • James D. Sauer

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Dora Matzke

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Eugene Aidman

    (Defence Science Technology Group
    University of Newcastle)

  • Andrew Heathcote

    (University of Amsterdam
    University of Newcastle)

Abstract

Standard, well-established cognitive tasks that produce reliable effects in group comparisons also lead to unreliable measurement when assessing individual differences. This reliability paradox has been demonstrated in decision-conflict tasks such as the Simon, Flanker, and Stroop tasks, which measure various aspects of cognitive control. We aim to address this paradox by implementing carefully calibrated versions of the standard tests with an additional manipulation to encourage processing of conflicting information, as well as combinations of standard tasks. Over five experiments, we show that a Flanker task and a combined Simon and Stroop task with the additional manipulation produced reliable estimates of individual differences in under 100 trials per task, which improves on the reliability seen in benchmark Flanker, Simon, and Stroop data. We make these tasks freely available and discuss both theoretical and applied implications regarding how the cognitive testing of individual differences is carried out.

Suggested Citation

  • Talira Kucina & Lindsay Wells & Ian Lewis & Kristy Salas & Amelia Kohl & Matthew A. Palmer & James D. Sauer & Dora Matzke & Eugene Aidman & Andrew Heathcote, 2023. "Calibration of cognitive tests to address the reliability paradox for decision-conflict tasks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:14:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-023-37777-2
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37777-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37777-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-023-37777-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:14:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-023-37777-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.