Go/No-Go Task

HED Task ID: hedtsk_go_no_go

Also known as: GNG, Go No-Go

Responses required to frequent “go” stimuli must be withheld on rare “no-go” stimuli; commission errors and N2/P3 ERPs index response inhibition.

Description

The Go/No-Go Task measures response inhibition by requiring participants to respond quickly to frequent “go” stimuli while withholding responses to infrequent “no-go” stimuli. The typical ratio is 70-80% go and 20-30% no-go trials, creating a strong prepotent tendency to respond. Performance is measured by go-trial RT (engagement), go-trial accuracy (compliance), and no-go accuracy / false alarm rate (inhibitory control). The task is simpler than the Stop-Signal task as it measures the ability to withhold (rather than cancel) a response.

Inclusion test

Procedure

Stimuli appear one at a time; participants respond (Go) to frequent targets and withhold (No-Go) responses to infrequent non-targets.

Manipulation

Go/No-Go ratio (typically 70:30 or 80:20); ISI; stimulus type; response deadline.

Measurement

Commission errors (false alarms to No-Go); omission errors; Go RT; No-Go N2 and P3 ERP components.

Variations

Variation

Description

Justification

Standard Go/No-Go

Frequent go stimuli (75–80%), infrequent no-go stimuli (20–25%).

Canonical: respond to go, withhold to no-go; measures response inhibition

Emotional Go/No-Go

Emotional faces or words as go/no-go stimuli; probes emotion-cognition interaction.

Emotional stimuli as go/no-go signals; retained per §5.1 (EMOT retired)

Reward/Punishment Go/No-Go

Pavlovian-instrumental transfer paradigm—reward biases go, punishment biases no-go.

Monetary outcomes for correct responses; motivation manipulation changes decision context

Probabilistic Go/No-Go

Varying go/no-go ratios (50/50 to 90/10) to manipulate prepotency.

Probabilistic rather than deterministic stimulus-response rules; different learning structure

Cued Go/No-Go

Pre-trial cues signal likely go or no-go, allowing proactive control.

Preparatory cue precedes imperative signal; different temporal structure

Flanked Go/No-Go

Go/no-go stimuli flanked by distractors; combines inhibition and selective attention.

Go/no-go signal surrounded by flanking distractors; adds conflict component

Reversal Go/No-Go

Mid-task contingency reversal; previously-go stimuli become no-go.

Go/no-go assignments reverse mid-task; tests reversal of inhibitory mappings

Saccadic Go/No-Go

Eye movements as responses; oculomotor inhibition.

Eye movement response instead of button press; different response effector

Multi-Stimulus Go/No-Go

Multiple go stimuli and multiple no-go stimuli; more complex stimulus-response mapping.

Multiple stimulus categories with different go/no-go rules; more complex rule set

Cognitive processes

This task engages the following cognitive processes:

Key references

  • {‘authors’: ‘Donders, F.’, ‘year’: 1969, ‘title’: ‘On the speed of mental processes’, ‘venue’: ‘Acta Psychologica’, ‘venue_type’: ‘journal’, ‘journal’: ‘Acta Psychologica’, ‘volume’: ‘30’, ‘issue’: None, ‘pages’: ‘412-431’, ‘doi’: ‘10.1016/0001-6918(69)90065-1’, ‘openalex_id’: None, ‘pmid’: None, ‘citation_string’: ‘Donders, F. C. (1969/1868). On the speed of mental processes. Acta Psychologica, 30, 412-431.’, ‘url’: ‘https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(69)90065-1’, ‘source’: ‘crossref’, ‘confidence’: ‘high’, ‘verified_on’: ‘2026-04-20’}

  • {‘authors’: ‘Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., & Stein, E. A.’, ‘year’: 1999, ‘title’: ‘Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: An event-related functional MRI study’, ‘venue’: ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’, ‘venue_type’: ‘journal’, ‘journal’: ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’, ‘volume’: ‘96’, ‘issue’: ‘14’, ‘pages’: ‘8301-8306’, ‘doi’: ‘10.1073/pnas.96.14.8301’, ‘openalex_id’: None, ‘pmid’: None, ‘citation_string’: ‘Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., & Stein, E. A. (1999). Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: An event-related functional MRI study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(14), 8301-8306.’, ‘url’: ‘https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.14.8301’, ‘source’: ‘crossref’, ‘confidence’: ‘high’, ‘verified_on’: ‘2026-04-20’}

  • {‘authors’: ‘Simmonds, D. J., Pekar, J. J., & Mostofsky, S. H.’, ‘year’: 2008, ‘title’: ‘Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent’, ‘venue’: ‘Neuropsychologia’, ‘venue_type’: ‘journal’, ‘journal’: ‘Neuropsychologia’, ‘volume’: ‘46’, ‘issue’: ‘1’, ‘pages’: ‘224-232’, ‘doi’: ‘10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015’, ‘openalex_id’: None, ‘pmid’: None, ‘citation_string’: ‘Simmonds, D. J., Pekar, J. J., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2008). Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia, 46(1), 224-232.’, ‘url’: ‘https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015’, ‘source’: ‘crossref’, ‘confidence’: ‘high’, ‘verified_on’: ‘2026-04-20’}

Recent references

  • {‘authors’: ‘Wessel, J. R.’, ‘year’: 2018, ‘title’: ‘Prepotent motor activity and inhibitory control demands in different variants of the go/no-go paradigm’, ‘venue’: ‘Psychophysiology’, ‘venue_type’: ‘journal’, ‘journal’: ‘Psychophysiology’, ‘volume’: ‘55’, ‘issue’: ‘3’, ‘pages’: None, ‘doi’: None, ‘openalex_id’: None, ‘pmid’: None, ‘citation_string’: ‘Wessel, J. R. (2018). Prepotent motor activity and inhibitory control demands in different variants of the go/no-go paradigm. Psychophysiology, 55(3), e12871.’, ‘url’: None, ‘source’: ‘unresolved’, ‘confidence’: ‘none’, ‘verified_on’: ‘2026-04-20’}

  • {‘authors’: ‘Swick, D., Ashley, V., & Turken, U.’, ‘year’: 2011, ‘title’: ‘Are the neural correlates of stopping and not going identical? Quantitative meta-analysis of two response inhibition tasks’, ‘venue’: ‘NeuroImage’, ‘venue_type’: ‘journal’, ‘journal’: ‘NeuroImage’, ‘volume’: ‘56’, ‘issue’: ‘3’, ‘pages’: ‘1655-1665’, ‘doi’: ‘10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.070’, ‘openalex_id’: None, ‘pmid’: None, ‘citation_string’: ‘Swick, D., Ashley, V., & Turken, U. (2011). Are the neural correlates of stopping and not going identical? Quantitative meta-analysis of two response inhibition tasks. NeuroImage, 56(3), 1655–1665.’, ‘url’: ‘https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.070’, ‘source’: ‘crossref’, ‘confidence’: ‘high’, ‘verified_on’: ‘2026-04-20’}

  • {‘authors’: ‘Criaud, M., & Boulinguez, P.’, ‘year’: 2013, ‘title’: ‘Have we been asking the right questions when assessing response inhibition in go/no-go tasks with fMRI? A meta-analysis and critical review’, ‘venue’: ‘Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews’, ‘venue_type’: ‘journal’, ‘journal’: ‘Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews’, ‘volume’: ‘37’, ‘issue’: ‘1’, ‘pages’: ‘11-23’, ‘doi’: ‘10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.11.003’, ‘openalex_id’: None, ‘pmid’: None, ‘citation_string’: ‘Criaud, M., & Boulinguez, P. (2013). Have we been asking the right questions when assessing response inhibition in go/no-go tasks with fMRI? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(1), 11–23.’, ‘url’: ‘https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.11.003’, ‘source’: ‘crossref’, ‘confidence’: ‘high’, ‘verified_on’: ‘2026-04-20’}

  • {‘authors’: ‘Littman, R., & Takács, Á.’, ‘year’: 2017, ‘title’: ‘Do all inhibitions act alike? A study of go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms’, ‘venue’: ‘PLOS ONE’, ‘venue_type’: ‘journal’, ‘journal’: ‘PLOS ONE’, ‘volume’: ‘12’, ‘issue’: ‘10’, ‘pages’: ‘e0186774’, ‘doi’: ‘10.1371/journal.pone.0186774’, ‘openalex_id’: None, ‘pmid’: None, ‘citation_string’: ‘Littman, R., & Takács, Á. (2017). Do all inhibitions act alike? A study of Go/No-Go and stop-signal paradigms using drift-diffusion modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 321.’, ‘url’: ‘https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186774’, ‘source’: ‘crossref’, ‘confidence’: ‘high’, ‘verified_on’: ‘2026-04-20’}