Table 2. Behavioral Results for Experiment 2.
The measures are similar to Table 1.
| Foreknowledge | No | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Maybe Stop Left | Maybe Stop Right | Foreknowledge Maybe Stop XXX |
|
| RT cued hand | 528 (61) | 536 (56) | 519 (67) |
| RT non-cued hand | 530 (57) | 532 (58) | 520 (64) |
| % go trials with decoupling | 2.8% (2.0) | 4.1% (2.9) | 1.9% (1.9) |
| % go trials with other errors | 3.9% (4.1) | 5.2% (7.3) | 3.9% (6.8) |
| % of stop trials on which subject stops correct hand |
86.7% (13.3) | 88.9% (11.8) | NA |
| Stop Signal Reaction Time (SSRT) |
312 (75) | 309 (61) | 303 (84) |
| RT alternative hand | 669 (81) | 666 (84) | 622 (79) |
| Interference effect | 140* (64) | 136* (54) | 103 (41) |
| p(stop)** | 0.69 (.14) | 0.73 (.14) | 0.73 (.14) |
*
The interference effect is inflated in the Maybe Stop Left and Maybe Stop Right foreknowledge conditions (relative to Experiment 1) because the probe method is used on every stop trial. Even if the participant knows what to stop most of the time (as suggested by mean recall accuracy > 85%) on some trials the participant is likely to forget and this will lead to a longer average stopping interference effect.
**
In this experiment fixed delays were used for the stop signal delay, rather than the tracking method of Experiment 1. This resulted in a higher p(stop).