Table 4.

Some characteristics of the studies that have used the Go/No-Go Task to assess executive dysfunction in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Studies	Participant N (mean age ±SD)	MMSE	Diagnostic criteria for AD	Go/No-Go task typologies	Differences between AD group and CG group
					Accuracy (No-Go)	Reaction time (Go)	Other indices
Amieva et al., 2002	CG = 28 (75.2 ± 6.6)	CG = 27.6 ± 1.8	NINCDS-ADRDA	Go Trial (red circle), No-Go Trial (blue triangle). Two errors: (1) wrongly remove the hand from starting point; (2) replace the hand or continue the action touching the No-Go stimulus. Four Data: RT latencies (Go Trial), Reaching time, I error score; II error score.	AD = CG	AD>CG	N/D[1]
	Mild AD = 28 (75.8 ± 6.1)	Mild AD = 24.6 ± 1.9
Collette et al., 2007	CG = 28 (70.6 ± 6.8) [13M;15F]	DRS	NINCDS-ADRDA	Go Trial (red circle), No-Go Trial (blue triangle). Two errors: 1) wrongly remove the hand from starting point; (2) replace the hand or continue the action touching the No-Go stimulus. Four Data: RT latencies (Go Trial), Reaching time, I error score; II error score.	AD = CG	AD>CG	N/D
	AD = 25 (72.5 ± 5.8) [18M;17F]
	FTD = 13 (65.7 ± 7.5) [5M;8F]
Stawarczyk et al., 2012	Study2	MMSE > 21	NINCDS-ADRDA	Two conditions:	AD = CG	AD = CG	N/D
	CG = 16 (76.6 ± 10.6) [7M;9F]			Simple RT task (to a stimulus);
	MildAD = 16 (75.3 ± 10.3) [7M;9F]			2) Go/No-Go task (responding as rapid as possible to the previous stimuli but not response to other). Two Data: RT of Go Trials; Accuracy of No-Go Trials (Zimmerman and Fimm, 1994).
Rochat et al., 2013	CG = 30 (72.05 ± 7.5)	CG = 27.87 ± 1.61	NINCDS-ADRDA	SART: response to a rare target (a number). Three data: (1) number of false alarms (measuring of inhibition); (2) RT of correct responses (measuring processing speed); (3) Coefficient of Variation (measuring attention) (Gay et al., 2008).	AD < CG	AD = CG	CoV: AD>CG
	AD = 30 (72.03 ± 5.9)	AD = 23.27 ± 3.24

NIA-AA, National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association.