A consensus guide to capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task.

Response inhibition is essential for navigating everyday life. Its derailment is considered integral to numerous neurological and psychiatric disorders, and more generally, to a wide range of behavioral and health problems. Response-inhibition efficiency furthermore correlates with treatment outcome in some of these conditions. The stop-signal task is an essential tool to determine how quickly response inhibition is implemented. Despite its apparent simplicity, there are many features (ranging from task design to data analysis) that vary across studies in ways that can easily compromise the validity of the obtained results. Our goal is to facilitate a more accurate use of the stop-signal task. To this end, we provide 12 easy-to-implement consensus recommendations and point out the problems that can arise when they are not followed. Furthermore, we provide user-friendly open-source resources intended to inform statistical-power considerations, facilitate the correct implementation of the task, and assist in proper data analysis.

Introduction

The ability to suppress unwanted or inappropriate actions and impulses (‘response inhibition’) is a crucial component of flexible and goal-directed behavior. The stop-signal task (Lappin and Eriksen, 1966; Logan and Cowan, 1984; Vince, 1948) is an essential tool for studying response inhibition in neuroscience, psychiatry, and psychology (among several other disciplines; see Appendix 1), and is used across various human (e.g. clinical vs. non-clinical, different age groups) and non-human (primates, rodents, etc.) populations. In this task, participants typically perform a go task (e.g. press left when an arrow pointing to the left appears, and right when an arrow pointing to the right appears), but on a minority of the trials, a stop signal (e.g. a cross replacing the arrow) appears after a variable stop-signal delay (SSD), instructing participants to suppress the imminent go response (Figure 1). Unlike the latency of go responses, response-inhibition latency cannot be observed directly (as successful response inhibition results in the absence of an observable response). The stop-signal task is unique in allowing the estimation of this covert latency (stop-signal reaction time or SSRT; Box 1). Research using the task has revealed links between inhibitory-control capacities and a wide range of behavioral and impulse-control problems in everyday life, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, substance abuse, eating disorders, and obsessive-compulsive behaviors (for meta-analyses, see e.g. Bartholdy et al., 2016; Lipszyc and Schachar, 2010; Smith et al., 2014).

Figure 1.

Depiction of the sequence of events in a stop-signal task (see https://osf.io/rmqaw/ for open-source software to execute the task).

In this example, participants respond to the direction of green arrows (by pressing the corresponding arrow key) in the go task. On one fourth of the trials, the arrow is replaced by ‘XX’ after a variable stop-signal delay (FIX = fixation duration; SSD = stop signal delay; MAX.RT = maximum reaction time; ITI = intertrial interval).

Today, the stop-signal field is flourishing like never before (see Appendix 1). There is a risk, however, that the task falls victim to its own success, if it is used without sufficient regard for a number of important factors that jointly determine its validity. Currently, there is considerable heterogeneity in how stop-signal studies are designed and executed, how the SSRT is estimated, and how results of stop-signal studies are reported. This is highly problematic. First, what might seem like small design details can have an immense impact on the nature of the stop process and the task. The heterogeneity in designs also complicates between-study comparisons, and some combinations of design and analysis features are incompatible. Second, SSRT estimates are unreliable when inappropriate estimation methods are used or when the underlying race-model assumptions are (seriously) violated (see Box 1 for a discussion of the race model). This can lead to artefactual and plainly incorrect results. Third, the validity of SSRT can be checked only if researchers report all relevant methodological information and data.

Here, we aim to address these issues by consensus. After an extensive consultation round, the authors of the present paper agreed on 12 recommendations that should safeguard and further improve the overall quality of future stop-signal research. The recommendations are based on previous methodological studies or, where further empirical support was required, on novel simulations (which are reported in Appendices 2–3). A full overview of the stop-signal literature is beyond the scope of this study (but see e.g. Aron, 2011; Bari and Robbins, 2013; Chambers et al., 2009; Schall et al., 2017; Verbruggen and Logan, 2017, for comprehensive overviews of the clinical, neuroscience, and cognitive stop-signal domains; see also the meta-analytic reviews mentioned above).

Below, we provide a concise description of the recommendations. We briefly introduce all important concepts in the main manuscript and the boxes. Appendix 4 provides an additional systematic overview of these concepts and their common alternative terms. Moreover, this article is accompanied by novel open-source resources that can be used to execute a stop-signal task and analyze the resulting data, in an easy-to-use way that complies with our present recommendations (https://osf.io/rmqaw/). The source code of the simulations (Appendices 2–3) is also provided, and can be used in the planning stage (e.g. to determine the required sample size under varying conditions, or acceptable levels of go omissions and RT distribution skew).

The independent race model

Here, we provide a brief discussion of the independent race model, without the specifics of the underlying mathematical basis. However, we recommend that stop-signal users read the original modelling papers (e.g. Logan and Cowan, 1984) to fully understand the task and the main behavioral measures, and to learn more about variants of the race model (e.g. Boucher et al., 2007; Colonius and Diederich, 2018; Logan et al., 2014; Logan et al., 2015).

Response inhibition in the stop-signal task can be conceptualized as an independent race between a ‘go runner’, triggered by the presentation of a go stimulus, and a ‘stop runner’, triggered by the presentation of a stop signal (Logan and Cowan, 1984). When the ‘stop runner’ finishes before the ‘go runner’, response inhibition is successful and no response is emitted (successful stop trial); but when the ‘go runner’ finishes before the ‘stop runner’, response inhibition is unsuccessful and the response is emitted (unsuccessful stop trial). The independent race model mathematically relates (a) the latencies (RT) of responses on unsuccessful stop trials; (b) RTs on go trials; and (c) the probability of responding on stop trials [p(respond|stop signal)] as a function of stop-signal delay (yielding ‘inhibition functions’). Importantly, the independent race model provides methods for estimating the covert latency of the stop process (stop-signal reaction time; SSRT). These estimation methods are described in Materials and methods.

Results and discussion

The following recommendations are for stop-signal users who are primarily interested in obtaining a reliable SSRT estimate under standard situations. The stop-signal task (or one of its variants) can also be used to study various aspects of executive control (e.g. performance monitoring, strategic adjustments, or learning) and their interactions, for which the design might have to be adjusted. However, researchers should be aware that this will come with specific challenges (e.g. Bissett and Logan, 2014; Nelson et al., 2010; Verbruggen et al., 2013; Verbruggen and Logan, 2015).

How to design stop-signal experiments

Recommendation 1: Use an appropriate go task

Standard two-choice reaction time tasks (e.g. in which participants have to discriminate between left and right arrows) are recommended for most purposes and populations. When very simple go tasks are used, the go stimulus and the stop signal will closely overlap in time (because the SSD has to be very short to still allow for the possibility to inhibit a response), leading to violations of the race model as stop-signal presentation might interfere with encoding of the go stimulus. Substantially increasing the difficulty of the go task (e.g. by making the discrimination much harder) might also influence the stop process (e.g. the underlying latency distribution or the probability that the stop process is triggered). Thus, very simple and very difficult go tasks should be avoided unless the researcher has theoretical or methodological reasons for using them (for example, simple detection tasks have been used in animal studies. To avoid responses before the go stimulus is presented or close overlap between the presentation of go stimulus and stop signal, the intertrial interval can be drawn from a random exponential distribution. This will make the occurrence of the go stimulus unpredictable, discouraging anticipatory responses). While two-choice tasks are the most common, we note that the ‘anticipatory response’ variant of the stop-signal task (in which participants have to press a key when a moving indicator reaches a stationary target) also holds promise (e.g. Leunissen et al., 2017).

Recommendation 2: Use a salient stop signal

SSRT is the overall latency of a chain of processes involved in stopping a response, including the detection of the stop signal. Unless researchers are specifically interested in such perceptual or attentional processes, salient, easily detectable stop signals should be used (when auditory stop signals are used, these should not be too loud either, as very loud (i.e. >80 dB) auditory stimuli may produce a startle reflex). Salient stop signals will reduce the relative contribution of perceptual (afferent) processes to the SSRT, and the probability that within- or between-group differences can be attributed to them. Salient stop signals might also reduce the probability of a ‘trigger failures’ on stop trials (see Box 2).

Recommendation 3: Present stop signals on a minority of trials

When participants strategically wait for a stop signal to occur, the nature of the stop-signal process and task change (complicating the comparison between conditions or groups; e.g. SSRT group differences might be caused by differential slowing or strategic adjustments). Importantly, SSRT estimates will also become less reliable when participants wait for the stop signal to occur (Verbruggen et al., 2013, see also Figure 2 and Appendix 2). Such waiting strategies can be discouraged by reducing the overall probability of a stop signal. For standard stop-signal studies, 25% stop signals is recommended. When researchers prefer a higher percentage of stop signals, additional measures to minimize slowing are required (see Recommendation 5).

Figure 2.

Main results of the simulations reported in Appendix 2.

Here, we show a comparison of the integration method (with replacement of go omissions) and the mean method, as a function of percentage of go omissions, skew of the RT distribution (), and number of trials. Appendix 2 provides a full overview of all methods. (A) The number of excluded ‘participants’ (RT on unsuccessful stop trials RT on go trials). As this check was performed before SSRTs were estimated (see Recommendation 7), the number was the same for both estimation methods. (B) The average difference between the estimated and true SSRT (positive values = overestimation; negative values = underestimation). SD = standard deviation of the difference scores (per panel). (C) Correlation between the estimated and true SSRT (higher values = more reliable estimate). Overall R = correlation when collapsed across percentage of go omissions and . Please note that the overall correlation does not necessarily correspond to the average of individual correlations.

Recommendation 4: Use the tracking procedure to obtain a broad range of stop-signal delays

If participants can predict when a stop signal will occur within a trial, they might also wait for it. Therefore, a broad range of SSDs is required. The stop-signal delay can be continuously adjusted via a standard adaptive tracking procedure: SSD increases after each successful stop, and decreases after each unsuccessful stop; this converges on a probability of responding [p(respond|signal)] ≈ 0.50. Many studies adjust SSD in steps of 50 ms (which corresponds to three screen ‘refreshes’ for 60 Hz monitors). When step size is too small (for example 16 ms) the tracking may not converge in short experiments, whereas it may not be sensitive enough if step size is too large. Importantly, SSD should decrease after all responses on unsuccessful stop trials; this includes premature responses on unsuccessful stop trials (i.e. responses executed before the stop signal was presented) and choice errors on unsuccessful stop trials (e.g. when a left go response would have been executed on the stop trial depicted in Figure 1, even though the arrow was pointing to the right).

An adaptive tracking procedure typically results in a sufficiently varied set of SSD values. An additional advantage of the tracking procedure is that fewer stop trials are required to obtain a reliable SSRT estimate (Band et al., 2003). Thus, the tracking procedure is recommended for standard applications.

Recommendation 5: Instruct participants not to wait and include block-based feedback

In human studies, task instructions should also be used to discourage waiting. At the very least, participants should be told that ‘[they] should respond as quickly as possible to the go stimulus and not wait for the stop signal to occur’ (or something along these lines). To adults, the tracking procedure (if used) can also be explained to further discourage a waiting strategy (i.e. inform participants that the probability of an unsuccessful stop trial will approximate 0.50, and that SSD will increase if they gradually slow their responses).

Inclusion of a practice block in which adherence to instructions is carefully monitored is recommended. In certain populations, such as young children, it might furthermore be advisable to start with a practice block without stop signals to emphasize the importance of the go component of the task.

Between blocks, participants should also be reminded about the instructions. Ideally, this is combined with block-based feedback, informing participants about their mean RT on go trials, number of go omissions (with a reminder that this should be 0), and p(respond|signal) (with a reminder that this should be close to .50). The feedback could even include an explicit measure of response slowing.

Recommendation 6: Include sufficient trials

The number of stop trials varies widely between studies. Our novel simulation results (see Figure 2 and Appendix 2) indicate that reliable and unbiased SSRT group-level estimates can be obtained with 50 stop trials (with 25% stop signals in an experiment, this amounts to 200 trials in total. Usually, this corresponds to an experiment of 7–10 min including breaks), but only under ‘optimal’ or very specific circumstances (e.g. when the probability of go omissions is low and the go-RT distribution is not strongly skewed). Lower trial numbers (here we tested 25 stop trials) rarely produced reliable SSRT estimates (and the number of excluded subjects was much higher; see Figure 2). Thus, as a general rule of thumb, we recommend to have at least 50 stop trials for standard group-level comparisons. However, it should again be stressed that this may not suffice to obtain reliable individual estimates (which are required for e.g. individual-differences research or diagnostic purposes).

Thus, our simulations reported in Appendix 2 suggest that reliability increases with number of trials. However, in some clinical populations, adding trials may not always be possible (e.g. when patients cannot concentrate for a sufficiently long period of time), and might even be counterproductive (as strong fluctuations over time can induce extra noise). Our simulations reported in Appendix 3 show that for standard group-level comparisons, researchers can compensate for lower trial numbers by increasing sample size. Above all, we strongly encourage researchers to make informed decisions about number of trials and participants, aiming for sufficiently powered studies. The accompanying open-source simulation code can be used for this purpose.

When and how to estimate SSRT

Recommendation 7: Do not estimate the SSRT when the assumptions of the race model are violated

SSRTs can be estimated based on the independent race model, which assumes an independent race between a go and a stop runner (Box 1). When this independence assumption is (seriously) violated, SSRT estimates become unreliable (Band et al., 2003). Therefore, the assumption should be checked. This can be done by comparing the mean RT on unsuccessful stop trials with the mean RT on go trials. Note that this comparison should include all trials with a response (including choice errors and premature responses), and it should be done for each participant and condition separately. SSRT should not be estimated when RT on unsuccessful stop trials is numerically longer than RT on go trials (see also, Appendix 2—table 1). More formal and in-depth tests of the race model can be performed (e.g. examining probability of responding and RT on unsuccessful stop trials as a function of delay); however, a large number of stop trials is required for such tests to be meaningful and reliable.

Appendix 2—table 1.

The mean difference between estimated and true SSRT for participants who were included in the main analyses and participants who were excluded (because average RT on unsuccessful stop trials average RT on go trials).

We did this only for = 1 or 50, p(go omission)=10, 15, or 20, and number of trials = 100 (i.e. when the number of excluded participants was high; see Panel A, Figure 2 of the main manuscript).

Estimation method	Included	Excluded
Integration with replacement of go omissions	−6.4	−35.8
Integration without replacement of go omissions	−19.4	−48.5
Integration with adjusted p(respond|signal)	12.5	−17.4
Mean	−16.0	−46.34

Recommendation 8: If using a non-parametric approach, estimate SSRT using the integration method (with replacement of go omissions)

Different SSRT estimation methods have been proposed (see Materials and methods). When the tracking procedure is used, the ‘mean estimation’ method is still the most popular (presumably because it is very easy to use). However, the mean method is strongly influenced by the right tail (skew) of the go RT distribution (see Appendix 2 for examples), as well as by go omissions (i.e. go trials on which no response is executed). The simulations reported in Appendix 2 and summarized in Figure 2 indicate that the integration method (which replaces go omissions with the maximum RT in order to compensate for the lacking response) is generally less biased and more reliable than the mean method when combined with the tracking procedure. Unlike the mean method, the integration method also does not assume that p(respond|signal) is exactly 0.50 (an assumption that is often not met in empirical data). Therefore, we recommend the use of the integration method (with replacement of go omissions) when non-parametric estimation methods are used. We provide software and the source code for this estimation method (and all other recommended measures; Recommendation 12).

Please note that some parametric SSRT estimation methods are less biased than even the best non-parametric methods and avoid other problems that can beset them (see Box 2); however, they can be harder for less technically adept researchers to use, and they may require more trials (see Matzke et al., 2018, for a discussion).

Recommendation 9: Refrain from estimating SSRT when the probability of responding on stop trials deviates substantially from 0.50 or when the probability of omissions on go trials is high

Even though the preferred integration method (with replacement of go omissions) is less influenced by deviations in p(respond|signal) and go omissions than other methods, it is not completely immune to them either (Figure 2 and Appendix 2). Previous work suggests that SSRT estimates are most reliable (Band et al., 2003) when probability of responding on a stop trial is relatively close to 0.50. Therefore, we recommend that researchers refrain from estimating individual SSRTs when p(respond|signal) is lower than 0.25 or higher than 0.75 (Congdon et al., 2012). Reliability of the estimates is also influenced by go performance. As the probability of a go omission increases, SSRT estimates also become less reliable. Figure 2 and the resources described in Appendix 3 can be used to determine an acceptable level of go omissions at a study level. Importantly, researchers should decide on these cut-offs or exclusion criteria before data collection has started.

Failures to trigger the stop process

The race model assumes that the go runner is triggered by the presentation of the go stimulus, and the stop runner by the presentation of the stop signal. However, go omissions (i.e. go trials without a response) are often observed in stop-signal studies. Our preferred SSRT method compensates for such go omissions (see Materials and methods). However, turning to the stopping process, studies using fixed SSDs have found that p(respond|signal) at very short delays (including SSD = 0 ms, when go and stop are presented together) is not always zero; this finding indicates that the stop runner may also not be triggered on all stop trials (‘trigger failures’).

The non-parametric estimation methods described in Materials and methods (see also Appendix 2) will overestimate SSRT when trigger failures are present on stop trials (Band et al., 2003). Unfortunately, these estimation methods cannot determine the presence or absence of trigger failures on stop trials. In order to diagnose in how far trigger failures are present in their data, researchers can include extra stop signals that occur at the same time of the go stimulus (i.e. SSD = 0, or shortly thereafter). Note that this number of zero-SSD trials should be sufficiently high to detect (subtle) within- or between-group differences in trigger failures. Furthermore, p(respond|signal) should be reported separately for these short-SSD trials, and these trials should not be included when calculating mean SSD or estimating SSRT (see Recommendation one for a discussion of problems that arise when SSDs are very short. Note that the (neural) mechanisms involved in stopping might also partly differ when SSD = 0; see for example Swick et al., 2011). Alternatively, researchers can use a parametric method to estimate SSRT. Such methods describe the whole SSRT distribution (unlike the non-parametric methods that estimate summary measures, such as the mean stop latency). Recent variants of such parametric methods also provide an estimate of the probability of trigger failures on stop trials (for the most recent version and specialized software, see Matzke et al., 2019).

How to report stop-signal experiments

Recommendation 10: Report the methods in enough detail

To allow proper evaluation and replication of the study findings, and to facilitate follow-up studies, researchers should carefully describe the stimuli, materials, and procedures used in the study, and provide a detailed overview of the performed analyses (including a precise description of how SSRT was estimated). This information can be presented in Supplementary Materials in case of journal restrictions. Box 3 provides a check-list that can be used by authors and reviewers. We also encourage researchers to share their software and materials (e.g. the actual stimuli).

Recommendation 11: Report possible exclusions in enough detail

As outlined above, researchers should refrain from estimating SSRT when the independence assumptions are seriously violated or when sub-optimal task performance might otherwise compromise the reliability of the estimates. The number of participants for whom SSRT was not estimated should be clearly mentioned. Ideally, dependent variables which are directly observed (see Recommendation 12) are separately reported for the participants that are not included in the SSRT analyses. Researchers should also clearly mention any other exclusion criteria (e.g. outliers based on distributional analyses, acceptable levels of go omissions, etc.), and whether those were set a-priori (analytic plans can be preregistered on a public repository, such as the Open Science Framework; Nosek et al., 2018).

Recommendation 12: Report all relevant behavioral data

Researchers should report all relevant descriptive statistics that are required to evaluate the findings of their stop-signal study (see Box 3 for a check-list). These should be reported for each group or condition separately. As noted above (Recommendation 7), additional checks of the independent race model can be reported when the number of stop trials is sufficiently high. Finally, we encourage researchers to share their anonymized raw (single-trial) data when possible (in accordance with the FAIR data guidelines; Wilkinson et al., 2016).

Check-lists for reporting stop-signal studies

The description of every stop-signal study should include the following information:

Stimuli and materials

Properties of the go stimuli, responses, and their mapping

Properties of the stop signal

Equipment used for testing

The procedure

The number of blocks (including practice blocks)

The number of go and stop trials per block

Detailed description of the randomization (e.g. is the order of go and stop trials fully randomized or pseudo-randomized?)

Detailed description of the tracking procedure (including start value, step size, minimum and maximum value) or the range and proportion of fixed stop-signal delays.

Timing of all events. This can include intertrial intervals, fixation intervals (if applicable), stimulus-presentation times, maximum response latency (and whether a trial is terminated when a response is executed or not), feedback duration (in case immediate feedback is presented), etc.

A summary of the instructions given to the participant, and any feedback-related information (full instructions can be reported in Supplementary Materials).

Information about training procedures (e.g. in case of animal studies)

The analyses

Which trials were included when analyzing go and stop performance

Which SSRT estimation method was used (see Materials and methods), providing additional details on the exact approach (e.g. whether or not go omissions were replaced; how go and stop trials with a choice errors–e.g. left response for right arrows–were handled; how the nth quantile was estimated; etc.)

Which statistical tests were used for inferential statistics

Stop-signal studies should also report the following descriptive statistics for each group and condition separately (see Appendix 4 for a description of all labels):

Probability of go omissions (no response)

Probability of choice errors on go trials

RT on go trials (mean or median). We recommend to report intra-subject variability as well (especially for clinical studies).

Probability of responding on a stop trial (for each SSD when fixed delays are used)

Average stop-signal delay (when the tracking procedure is used); depending on the set-up, it is advisable to report (and use) the ‘real’ SSDs (e.g. for visual stimuli, the requested SSD may not always correspond to the real SSD due to screen constraints).

Stop-signal reaction time

RT of go responses on unsuccessful stop trials

Conclusion

Response inhibition and impulse control are central topics in various fields of research, including neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, neurology, pharmacology, and behavioral sciences, and the stop-signal task has become an essential tool in their study. If properly used, the task can reveal unique information about the underlying neuro-cognitive control mechanisms. By providing clear recommendations, and open-source resources, this paper aims to further increase the quality of research in the response-inhibition and impulse-control domain and to significantly accelerate its progress across the various important domains in which it is routinely applied.

Materials and methods

The independent race model (Box 1) provides two common ‘non-parametric’ methods for estimating SSRT: the integration method and the mean method. Both methods have been used in slightly different flavors in combination with the SSD tracking procedure (see Recommendation 4). Here, we discuss the two most typical estimation variants, which we further scrutinized in our simulations (Appendix 2). We refer the reader to Appendices 2 and 3 for a detailed description of the simulations.

Integration method (with replacement of go omissions)

In the integration method, the point at which the stop process finishes (Box 1) is estimated by ‘integrating’ the RT distribution and finding the point at which the integral equals p(respond|signal). The finishing time of the stop process corresponds to the nth RT, with n = the number of RTs in the RT distribution of go trials multiplied by p(respond|signal). When combined with the tracking procedure, overall p(respond|signal) is used. For example, when there are 200 go trials, and overall p(respond|signal) is 0.45, then the nth RT is the 90th fastest go RT. SSRT can then be estimated by subtracting mean SSD from the nth RT. To determine the nth RT, all go trials with a response are included (including go trials with a choice error and go trials with a premature response). Importantly, go omissions (i.e. go trials on which the participant did not respond before the response deadline) are assigned the maximum RT in order to compensate for the lacking response. Premature responses on unsuccessful stop trials (i.e. responses executed before the stop signal is presented) should also be included when calculating p(respond|signal) and mean SSD (as noted in Recommendation 4, SSD should also be adjusted after such trials). This version of the integration method produces the most reliable and least biased non-parametric SSRT estimates (Appendix 2).

The mean method

The mean method uses the mean of the inhibition function (which describes the relationship between p(respond|signal) and SSD). Ideally, this mean corresponds to the average SSD obtained with the tracking procedure when p(respond|signal) = 0.50 (and often this is taken as a given despite some variation). In other words, the mean method assumes that the mean RT equals SSRT + mean SSD, so SSRT can be estimated easily by subtracting mean SSD from mean RT on go trials when the tracking procedure is used. The ease of use has made this the most popular estimation method. However, our simulations show that this simple version of the mean method is biased and generally less reliable than the integration method with replacement of go omissions.

In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.

Your article, "Capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors: A consensus guide to the stop-signal task", has been reviewed by two reviewers and accepted for publication in eLife. This decision was overseen by Michael Frank (Senior Editor) and David Badre (Reviewing Editor).

This article provides an expert consensus view and practical guide of best practices in measuring response inhibition with the stop-signal task. It is a well-written and timely piece. The authors have done a great service for the field. The guide and resources provided will be tools of high value to both basic scientists and those in applied domains, such as clinicians interested in leveraging inhibition. The reviewers and the editors were in consensus on these strengths. There was also agreement that no major weaknesses were found in review. As eLife only asks revision for essential revisions, the unanimous decision was to accept the paper.

In our opinion, the paper could be made even stronger by addressing the following comments in the final submission of the paper. However, acceptance is not contingent on addressing them and they will not be reviewed again. We list these below. Congratulations on a valuable contribution to the field.

Reviewer suggestions for your consideration:

- Please provide references for this statement in the Introduction: "Research using the task has revealed links between inhibitory-control capacities and a wide range of behavioral and impulse-control problems in everyday life (e.g., attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, substance abuse, obesity, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, excessive risk-taking)." To be most accurate, this statement would need to cite studies that show a correlation between SSRT and symptom severity in the clinical populations mentioned above. This is important because SSRT may not always correlate with impulsivity (see Skippen et al., 2019).

- Trials that are called "trigger failures" (Box 2) might represent different underlying processes, depending on when the stop signal is presented in relation to the go signal. Trials in which the go and stop signals are presented simultaneously are similar to no-go trials in the go/no-go task, with trigger failures analogous to false alarm errors on no-go trials. This type of trial is thought to measure restraint, rather than cancellation (Schachar et al., 2007, 2011). Restraint (refraining from responding) and cancellation (stopping an already-prepared response, measured by SSRT) might have some distinctive neural correlates (e.g., Eagle et al., 2008; Swick et al., 2011; Sebastian et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017), although there is much overlap as well. Certain clinical populations could show differential impairment on restraint vs. cancellation trials. This conception of trigger failures doesn't affect any of the recommended guidelines for non-parametric estimation methods, but might be considered by the authors.

- Though the manuscript is clear and uncluttered, there was concern that the referencing may be over sparse. The authors might consider a table of key papers in this domain to aid practitioners.

- Recommendations 10-12 might be summarized in a box or table rather than bulleted in the main test.

Reviewer suggestions for your consideration.

- Please provide references for this statement in the Introduction: "Research using the task has revealed links between inhibitory-control capacities and a wide range of behavioral and impulse-control problems in everyday life (e.g., attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, substance abuse, obesity, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, excessive risk-taking)." To be most accurate, this statement would need to cite studies that show a correlation between SSRT and symptom severity in the clinical populations mentioned above. This is important because SSRT may not always correlate with impulsivity (see Skippen et al., 2019).

Some (but not all) studies have found a correlation between SSRT and symptom severity in various clinical populations. Furthermore, SSRT correlates with the treatment outcome in some of these conditions (as noted in the manuscript). However, a full review of the clinical literature is beyond the scope of the present manuscript. Instead, we have cited a couple of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that focused on stop-signal performance in different psychopathological disorders. More specifically, in the Introduction of the revised manuscript, we now write: “Research using the task has revealed links between inhibitory-control capacities and a wide range of behavioral and impulse-control problems in everyday life, including attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder, substance abuse, eating disorders, and obsessive-compulsive behaviors (for meta-analyses, see e.g. Bartholdy et al., 2016; Lipszyc and Schachar, 2010; Smith et al., 2014).”

- Trials that are called "trigger failures" (Box 2) might represent different underlying processes, depending on when the stop signal is presented in relation to the go signal. Trials in which the go and stop signals are presented simultaneously are similar to no-go trials in the go/no-go task, with trigger failures analogous to false alarm errors on no-go trials. This type of trial is thought to measure restraint, rather than cancellation (Schachar et al., 2007, 2011). Restraint (refraining from responding) and cancellation (stopping an already-prepared response, measured by SSRT) might have some distinctive neural correlates (e.g., Eagle et al., 2008; Swick et al., 2011; Sebastian et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017), although there is much overlap as well. Certain clinical populations could show differential impairment on restraint vs. cancellation trials. This conception of trigger failures doesn't affect any of the recommended guidelines for non-parametric estimation methods, but might be considered by the authors.

We have briefly mentioned in Box 2 of the revised manuscript that different (neural) mechanisms might be involved in stopping when SSD = 0. Whether or not trigger failures at different SSDs also represent different underlying processes is an open empirical question. Note that trigger failures can occur for all SSDs (including long SSDs); therefore, we believe it is not appropriate to equate’ trigger failures’ at very short SSDs with (failures of)’ action restraint’ (at least based on our current knowledge of trigger failures).

- Though the manuscript is clear and uncluttered, there was concern that the referencing may be over sparse. The authors might consider a table of key papers in this domain to aid practitioners.

Given the main topic of the manuscript (i.e. how to empirically capture the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task), we decided to focus on key methodological papers. However, to assist readers who are not very familiar with the stop-signal literature yet, we have added in the revised version a few references to review papers that provide a detailed overview of the clinical, neuroscience, and cognitive stop-signal domains. In the Introduction of the revised manuscript, we write: “A full overview of the stop-signal literature is beyond the scope of this study (but see e.g. Aron, 2011; Bari and Robbins, 2013; Chambers et al., 2009; Schall et al., 2017; Verbruggen and Logan, 2017, for comprehensive overviews of the clinical, neuroscience, and cognitive stop-signal domains; see also the meta-analytic reviews mentioned above).”

- Recommendations 10-12 might be summarized in a box or table rather than bulleted in the main test.

As suggested by the reviewers, we have put the checklist that accompanied Recommendations 10 and 12 in a new text box, and the main text provides only a short description of the recommendations (making it more similar to the other ones). We decided to keep a summary of Recommendations 10-12 in the main text as we believe that these recommendations are equally important as all the other recommendations.

Appendix 3—table 1.

Parameters of the go distribution for the control group and the three experimental conditions.

SSRT of all experimental groups differed from SSRT in the control group (see below).

Parameters of go distribution	Control	Experimental 1	Experimental 2	Experimental 3
μ_g⁢o	500	500	525	575
σ_g⁢o	50	50	52.5	57.5
τ_g⁢o	50	50	75	125
go omission	0	0	5	10

Label	Description	Common alternative labels
Stop-signal task	A task used to measure response inhibition in the lab. Consists of a go component (e.g. a two-choice discrimination task) and a stop component (suppressing the response when an extra signal appears).	Stop-signal reaction time task, stop-signal paradigm, countermanding task
Go trial	On these trials (usually the majority), participants respond to the go stimulus as quickly and accurately as possible (e.g. left arrow = left key, right arrow = right key).	No-signal trial, no-stop-signal trial
Stop trial	On these trials (usually the minority), an extra signal is presented after a variable delay, instructing participants to stop their response to the go stimulus.	Stop-signal trial, signal trial
Successful stop trial	On these stop trials, the participants successfully stopped (inhibited) their go response.	Stop-success trial, signal-inhibit trial, canceled trial
Unsuccessful stop trial	On these stop trials, the participants could not inhibit their go response; hence, they responded despite the (stop-signal) instruction not to do so.	Stop-failure trial, signal-respond trial, noncanceled trial, stop error
Go omission	Go trials without a go response.	Go-omission error, misses, missed responses
Choice errors on go trials	Incorrect response on a go trial (e.g. the go stimulus required a left response but a right response was executed).	(Go) errors, incorrect (go or no-signal) trials
Premature response on a go trial	A response executed before the presentation of the go stimulus on a go trial. This can happen when go-stimulus presentation is highly predictable in time (and stimulus identity is not relevant to the go task; e.g. in a simple detection task) or when participants are ‘impulsive’. Note that response latencies will be negative on such trials.
p(respond|signal)	Probability of responding on a stop trial. Non-parametric estimation methods (Materials and Methods) use p(respond|signal) to determine SSRT.	P(respond), response rate, p(inhibit)=1 p(respond|signal)
Choice errors on unsuccessful stop trials	Unsuccessful stop trials on which the incorrect go response was executed (e.g. the go stimulus required a left response but a right response was executed).	Incorrect signal-respond trials
Premature responses on unsuccessful stop trials	This is a special case of unsuccessful stop trials, referring to go responses executed after the presentation of the go stimulus but before the presentation of the stop signal. In some studies, this label is also used for go responses executed before the presentation of the go stimulus on stop trials (see description premature responses on go trials).	Premature signal-respond
Trigger failures on stop trials	Failures to launch the stop process or ‘runner’ on stop trials (see Box 2 for further discussion).
Reaction time (RT) on go trials	How long does it take to respond to the stimulus on go trials? This corresponds to the finishing time of the go runner in the independent race model.	Go RT, go latency, no-signal RT
Stop-signal delay (SSD)	The delay between the presentation of the go stimulus and the stop signal	Stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA)
Stop-signal reaction time (SSRT)	How long does it take to stop a response? SSD + SSRT correspond to the finishing time of the stop runner in the independent race model.	Stop latency
RT on unsuccessful stop trials	Reaction time of the go response on unsuccessful stop trials	Signal-respond RT, SR-RT (note that this abbreviation is highly similar to the abbreviation for stop-signal reaction time, which can cause confusion)
Note: The different types of unsuccessful stop trials (including choice errors and premature responses) are usually collapsed when calculating p(respond|signal), estimating SSRT, or tracking SSD.