I am currently working with the Pavlovian conditioned inhibition paradigm (A. K. A. feature negative discrimination, or A+/AX-) in a magazine approach conditioning procedure with rats. I got a .85 reliability coefficient when I measure inhibition as the subtraction of the magazine activity during the stimulus A minus the magazine activity during the AX compound. Nevertheless, I suspect that this measure is pretty skewed by the amount of total magazine activity during the stimulus A, which varies considerably from one individual to another. Hence, I implemented an alternative measure, based on signal detection theory, and I got a .52 reliability coefficient. Not so bad for different moments and slightly different conditions, but could be better. I hope you find this information helpful.

Check out our validation of the fixed minimum interval schedule of reinforcement as a response-inhibition assessment paradigm:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016502701500103X

We tested for sensitivity, specificity, and (test-retest) reliability.

Thanks, Rodrigo, this is indeed helpful. Did you get much variability across subjects? I also need something that (1) produces differences at the level of the individual and (2) avoids ceiling and floor effects. This is because I want to apply transcranial magnetic stimulation to push behavior around... I'll also need to adapt the task for use with humans. I have used causal learning paradigm to look at Pavlovian conditioning in humans but honestly, I am not sure the mechanisms invoked by humans in these task are Pavlovian in nature.

Fed, ah yes I had forgotten about this task; it is a good one! Have you adapted the task for use with humans? If not, I would be VERY interested in doing this. Also, thank you for doing sensitivity, specificity and reliability tests. This is this sound science and I wish more people took your approach. 

Thanks for the kind word. A former student, Ryan Becker (Carter knows him) is currently working with Elias Robles (ASU West) using the BART paradigm (http://www.impulsivity.org/measurement/BART). I believe that's a pretty well-validated task. The impulsivity.org page has other standard tasks. Ryan is also conducting a timing task using a program he coded, which can be easily adapted as an FMI. If you are interested, I can send you his information via email.

I'm not much of a fan of the BART or IGT tasks as there are so many cognitive and behavioral processes interacting, it's hard to interpret effects. Then again, perhaps this is less of an issue if computational models are used, much like you do :). Yes, please do send info! My email is [email protected]. Thanks so much!!

I just sent you his contact info. You are right about tasks like BART and IGT, but I am afraid such unwanted complexity comes with the territory when working with humans. Yay computational models!!

That may be true but there are bad tasks and worse tasks for isolating cognitive-behavioral processes in humans, haha. I try to use task dissociation protocols and parametric manipulations to better understand mechanism but ultimately I agree with you. humans ≠ pigeons or rats. 

Thanks for his info

Hi, Jennifer. Indeed, the Pavlovian conditioned inhibition paradigm produces considerably high interindividual variability, in rats. It also avoids ceiling and floor effects, as almost all of the subjects show some degree of inhibition but none of them display a "complete" inhibition. Nonetheless, I think that this performance is dependient of the specific parameters of the procedure. There are some interesting procedures to study Pavlovian conditioned inhibition in humans aside causal learning paradigms.

For example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236666591_Do_Personality_Traits_Predict_Individual_Differences_in_Excitatory_and_Inhibitory_Learning

Article Do Personality Traits Predict Individual Differences in Exci...

If anyone wants any advice/tips in adopting the procedures we've been using, please feel free to contact me or Charlotte Bonardi directly. 'X' is a strong control and we've since seen evidence of differential inhibition with this kind of procedure.

Helen, that would be great! What's your email?

[email protected]

[email protected]

I'd suggest copy Charlotte in as it was her suggested design, and we've both done some further work since. Zhimin He is now at Kings (Institute of Psychiatry), shortly relocating to Aberystwyth Psychology (UK). I know she's quite busy at present but I'm sure she'll help too if you have any very specific questions about the work in the published article.

Hi - Charlotte here - not sure I understand the question! what do you want to measure?

Thank you, Helen!

Charlotte, I'm in search of a cognitive-behavioral task with good psychometric properties. We are trying to get a task-based single-pulse TMS-fMRI protocol off of the ground. The group I've been working with has tried a number of tasks but they aren't reliable. Add the complication of determining parameters required for TMS in the scanner, with the precision of pulse delivery on a trial by trial basis during task; you're just begging for failure. I am most interested in behavioral inhibition and negative affect but I am at the point now where I want to start with any reliable task and go from there. We are currently tossing around ideas with the MID task and cued go/no-go. In any event, the purpose of this post was to inquire about any psychometrically sound tasks as I can't have an unreliable task while I try to figure out necessary parameters for task-based TMS-fMRI. Make sense? We can chat by email if you prefer

Yes - maybe email would be better ([email protected]); but I suspect I won't be able to help as if by that you mean a task that works regardless of procedural variations, I don't think I have enough experience with human work to be able to advise sensibly.

PS I see I am being advised to identify myself as an expert in my field by providing high quality answers! Oh well...

Nope, I don't really mean that- I'll email you here in a bit. I almost wish I could say the same about not having enough experience with humans (ahh so much variability) ... if only we could cage them and put them on food restriction (JOKING).

Haha. I suspect the high quality answers will come out in our email exchange.

Oh ok then - I'll look out for your message!

Just to add, at the risk of stating the obvious, effective excitatory pre-training can be important to show inhibitory learning reliably. We just had a lab meeting about some reported difficulties with blocking procedures and in some of the studies described it wasn't clear that the pre-training had been effective!

In a clinical study, it can be good practice to exclude non-learners or get participants to a learning criterion before proceeding to examine blocking or inhibitory learning (reporting full details of course).

I've just noticed what looks like a very interesting paper from Andrew Nelson et al. on understanding behavioural variability in animal studies. I haven't read it myself yet but it's listed on ResearchGate.

Best wishes, Helen

It is a very special question, what you have  raised.. . I fear that you have create your control group and treated group. And compare them.. 

If we're talking about psychiatric medicine, I wish we looked at more than the effect of treatment on the targeted population relative to healthy controls. It would be nice to know if our treatments were population specific vs general (e.g. compare patients who are 1. clinically depressed 2. meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD 3. dual diagnosis 4. healthy controls). I don't see precision medicine becoming routine practice until things like this happen. 

Then there's the issue of selection bias in clinical trials... excluding the people we need to study most... e.g. Addicts with co-morbid depression 

Dual tasks are the most sensitive  task for executive function and mental deterioration. Walk with counting back and you measure the time. I like TRail making tests , too.

Best,

Judit