Inhibition in motion: Test-retest reliability of inhibitory kinematics in a go/no-go mouse tracking task

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-NC-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Response inhibition, the ability to suppress contextually inappropriate actions, is a cornerstone of cognitive control and is commonly assessed using paradigms such as the go/no-go task. However, traditional go/no-go paradigms rely on binary outcomes such as commission errors, which offer limited insight into the dynamic, graded behavioral adjustments underlying successful stopping. The present study developed a novel mouse-tracking go/no-go paradigm with a dynamic start to capture inhibitory processes during ongoing execution. Twenty-three healthy young adults completed the task in two sessions separated by approximately one week to evaluate the test-retest reliability of standard behavioral measures (error rates and reaction times), and three kinematic features: path length, mean velocity, and mean acceleration. Results revealed robust differences between go and no-go trials across all measures. Successful inhibition was characterized by significantly shorter path lengths and reduced mean velocity and acceleration compared to go trials. Critically, all measures demonstrated moderate-to-good test-retest reliability across sessions, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from .75 to .85 for go trials and from .59 to .83 for no-go trials. These findings establish construct validity and psychometric reliability of the current mouse-tracking go/no-go paradigm. The demonstrated stability of these measures provides the methodological foundation for their use in cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention research targeting inhibitory control.
Full text 1,848 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Response inhibition, the ability to suppress contextually inappropriate actions, is a cornerstone of cognitive control and is commonly assessed using paradigms such as the go/no-go task. However, traditional go/no-go paradigms rely on binary outcomes such as commission errors, which offer limited insight into the dynamic, graded behavioral adjustments underlying successful stopping. The present study developed a novel mouse-tracking go/no-go paradigm with a dynamic start to capture inhibitory processes during ongoing execution. Twenty-three healthy young adults completed the task in two sessions separated by approximately one week to evaluate the test-retest reliability of standard behavioral measures (error rates and reaction times), and three kinematic features: path length, mean velocity, and mean acceleration. Results revealed robust differences between go and no-go trials across all measures. Successful inhibition was characterized by significantly shorter path lengths and reduced mean velocity and acceleration compared to go trials. Critically, all measures demonstrated moderate-to-good test-retest reliability across sessions, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from .75 to .85 for go trials and from .59 to .83 for no-go trials. These findings establish construct validity and psychometric reliability of the current mouse-tracking go/no-go paradigm. The demonstrated stability of these measures provides the methodological foundation for their use in cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention research targeting inhibitory control. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes Authors Note: This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (Research Unit FOR 5429/1 [467143400], project grants ME 3161/5-1, ME 3161/6-1, and FI 1624/6-1).

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-26T02:00:01.498150+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0