Go/No-Go Task: Examples, Response Inhibition and Research

What is the go/no-go task? Origin and history

The go/no-go task goes back to the Dutch physiologist F. C. Donders, whose 1868 paper on the speed of mental processes used reaction times to estimate how long mental steps take. In one of his tasks, a person heard one of several syllables, such as ka, ke, ki, ko or ku, and had to repeat only one of them, saying "ka" for ka and staying silent for the rest. Donders found that people answered faster in this task than when they had to repeat every syllable.

Today the task usually means pressing a button for go stimuli and doing nothing for no-go stimuli. A 2008 meta-analysis of brain imaging studies by Simmonds and colleagues explains that go stimuli are usually shown more often, to build up a habit of responding. They noted that nearly all go/no-go studies show at least three go trials for every no-go trial. They also separated simple versions, with one fixed no-go stimulus, from complex ones, where the no-go stimulus depends on context and memory.

Go/no-go task examples, scoring and online versions

Researchers usually look at three numbers. Commission errors are presses on no-go trials, the main index of withholding a response. Omission errors are missed go trials, often read as lapses in attention. Reaction time on go trials shows speed. A 2014 meta-analysis by Wright and colleagues used these same three measures.

Online versions run in a browser and share the limits of other online reaction tests. A 2021 study of online experiment platforms found response times recorded about 80 milliseconds late on average, varying by computer and browser; phones and tablets were not tested. In a 2018 study by Hedge and colleagues, retest reliability across seven classic tasks, go/no-go among them, ranged from 0 to .82. Online tests also differ in how often no-go trials appear and how fast trials come, so their scores cannot be compared or used as a diagnosis.

Common go/no-go task examples:

• Letters: press for every letter except X.
• Shapes or colors: press for green circles, do nothing for red ones.
• Pictures: press for most pictures but not for food, as in some health studies.
• Movement games for children: run on a green card, freeze on a red one.

Response inhibition and executive function: meaning, tasks and activities

Response inhibition means stopping or holding back an action that is not needed or not appropriate. In her 2013 review in the Annual Review of Psychology, Adele Diamond lists inhibition as one of three core executive functions, with working memory and cognitive flexibility. She splits inhibition into response inhibition, which covers self-control and not acting on impulse, and interference control, which covers selective attention.

Common inhibition tasks include:

• The go/no-go task: hold back on a no-go signal.
• The stop-signal task: cancel a response that has already started (see below).
• The Stroop test: name the ink color, not the written color word.
• The flanker task: respond to the middle item and ignore the ones beside it.
• Everyday response inhibition activities, such as Simon Says, red light/green light and freeze games, use the same go and stop rules, although these games are not standardized tests.

Go/no-go vs the stop-signal task

The two tasks are often confused. In a go/no-go task, the stimulus itself tells you whether to respond, so you know from the start of the trial. In the stop-signal task, every trial starts as a go trial. On some trials, a stop signal such as a beep comes a moment after the go signal, and you must cancel a response that is already on its way. People are asked not to wait for the stop signal.

The stop-signal task comes from a race model published by Gordon Logan and William Cowan in 1984. The model treats stopping as a race between a go process and a stop process, and lets researchers estimate the stop-signal reaction time, the hidden time it takes to stop. Verbruggen and Logan noted in 2008 that in go/no-go tasks each stimulus is always linked to going or stopping, which can make stopping more automatic. A 2019 consensus guide set out 12 recommendations for running and scoring the stop-signal task.

The go/no-go task and ADHD: what research reports

In a 2005 meta-analysis of 83 studies, with 3,734 people with ADHD and 2,969 without, Willcutt and colleagues found medium-sized group differences on executive function tasks (effect sizes .46 to .69). The most consistent differences were on response inhibition, vigilance, working memory and planning. The authors wrote that these weaknesses are "neither necessary nor sufficient" to cause all cases of ADHD.

Wright and colleagues pooled 318 studies of go/no-go and similar tasks across 11 psychiatric conditions in 2014. Commission error differences ranged from g = -0.10 for anxiety disorders to 0.52 for bipolar disorder. They concluded that withholding deficits are not sensitive or specific enough to be used alone as a diagnostic test in most disorders.

Training studies in ADHD report results by who rated the outcome. A 2015 meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials with 759 children by Cortese and colleagues found that cognitive training effects on total ADHD symptoms were smaller when raters were probably blinded (SMD 0.20) than when they were not. Effects on hyperactivity and impulsivity and on academic performance were not significant. A 2013 meta-analysis of 25 studies by Rapport and colleagues found that unblinded raters reported larger benefits than blinded raters or objective tests, and that far transfer to academic and cognitive outcomes was not significant or negligible.

Response inhibition training: what studies found

In a single session with 60 adults, Benikos and colleagues found that go/no-go performance improved most when the response deadline was moderate, rather than very easy or very hard. Over longer training, Enge and colleagues found no difference between adaptive go/no-go and stop-signal training and an active control in 122 young adults, including on an untrained Stroop task and fluid intelligence, at the end of training and 4 months later. In preschoolers, Liu and colleagues randomized 40 children to a tablet game in which they sliced fruit and avoided bombs, or to a coloring game. The trained group scored much higher on the game but did not change on a separate go/no-go task. A difference on a reasoning test did not survive the authors' statistical correction, and they called it a trend.

Health studies pair the no-go signal with a food or drink picture. Lawrence and colleagues randomized 83 adults, most of them overweight, to four 10-minute online go/no-go sessions with snack foods or other pictures as no-go signals. The food group lost more weight and ate less in the following week, and reported lower weight at 6 months. Allom and colleagues pooled 19 studies in 2016 and found a small effect on health behaviors (d = 0.378), larger for go/no-go than stop-signal training and for objective outcomes measured right away. They wrote that the effects may last "perhaps only in the short-term." Jones and colleagues pooled 14 laboratory reports in 2016 and called for research outside the lab. Our visual brain training guide summarizes the wider brain training debate.

Flower Tap: a go/no-go game modeled on the task

Flower Tap is the Optics Trainer game modeled on the go/no-go task. Flowers pop up out of holes in a lawn, one after another. Each carries a C-shaped symbol whose opening points up, down, left or right. A bar at the bottom shows the target direction. You tap only the flowers whose C points that way and leave the rest alone.

What it keeps is the go/no-go rule: respond to one kind of item, hold back on the others, and get scored on hits, presses on the wrong flowers and missed targets.

What it changes:

• About half the flowers are targets. Classic versions usually show go trials at least three times as often as no-go trials.
• The go/no-go decision depends on a small detail, the direction of the C's opening, and flowers appear at many places on the lawn, so you also have to search the screen.
• Each flower stays up for a short time, and the pace adjusts as you play: hits, wrong taps and missed targets all move the speed up or down. A session is about one minute.
• It has an optional binocular presentation. In 3D Glasses mode, each C is drawn in a colour that only one eye sees through red-blue glasses on a phone, tablet or computer, or through the built-in display on Meta Quest. Depending on the setting, every C goes to one eye or the flowers are split between the eyes.

Where Optics Trainer fits

Optics Trainer is a set of vision and brain training games for iPhone, iPad, Android, web browsers and Meta Quest. Flower Tap is modeled on the go/no-go task and challenges you to tap only the right flowers at a changing pace. It was not tested in any of the studies described here. It is not a measure or test, does not report commission errors or any inhibition score, and is not a treatment or diagnosis. It is not FDA cleared. We make no claim that it changes self-control, attention, focus, IQ, school performance, eating or memory. For clinical reaction time measurement, see our clinic article on visual reaction time testing.

Optics Trainer is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or prescribed care. Consult your eye care professional for guidance about your specific condition. The phone and tablet apps start with a 7-day free trial, and a free web account includes 3 plays a day. After that, mobile and web access is $14.99 a month or $149.99 a year.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

1. Donders FC. On the speed of mental processes. Acta Psychol. 1969 (original work 1868)
2. Perea M, et al. Are go/no-go tasks preferable to two-choice tasks in response time experiments with older adults? J Cogn Psychol. 2016
3. Gomez P, Ratcliff R, Perea M. A model of the go/no-go task. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007
4. Simmonds DJ, Pekar JJ, Mostofsky SH. Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia. 2008
5. Diamond A. Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013
6. Logan GD, Cowan WB. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a theory of an act of control. Psychol Rev. 1984
7. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008
8. Verbruggen F, et al. A consensus guide to capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task. eLife. 2019
9. Wright L, et al. Response inhibition and psychopathology: a meta-analysis of go/no-go task performance. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014
10. Hedge C, Powell G, Sumner P. The reliability paradox. Behav Res Methods. 2018
11. Anwyl-Irvine A, et al. Realistic precision and accuracy of online experiment platforms, web browsers, and devices. Behav Res Methods. 2021
12. Willcutt EG, et al. Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Biol Psychiatry. 2005
13. Cortese S, et al. Cognitive training for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015
14. Rapport MD, et al. Do programs designed to train working memory, other executive functions, and attention benefit children with ADHD? Clin Psychol Rev. 2013
15. Benikos N, Johnstone SJ, Roodenrys SJ. Short-term training in the Go/Nogo task: behavioural and neural changes depend on task demands. Int J Psychophysiol. 2013
16. Enge S, et al. No evidence for true training and transfer effects after inhibitory control training in young healthy adults. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014
17. Liu Q, et al. The effects of inhibitory control training for preschoolers on reasoning ability and neural activity. Sci Rep. 2015
18. Lawrence NS, et al. Training response inhibition to food is associated with weight loss and reduced energy intake. Appetite. 2015
19. Allom V, Mullan B, Hagger M. Does inhibitory control training improve health behaviour? A meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2016
20. Jones A, et al. Inhibitory control training for appetitive behaviour change: a meta-analytic investigation. Appetite. 2016
21. Kassai R, et al. A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence on the near- and far-transfer effects among children's executive function skills. Psychol Bull. 2019

Related guides

• Brain Games Backed by Science? The Lab Tasks Behind Them
• Flanker Task: Meaning, Example, Scoring and Research
• Stroop Test: The Stroop Effect, Experiment and Research
• Peripheral Vision Training: Games, Apps and the Research