A curated list of experimental psychology tasks and paradigms, the platforms to run them, and the repositories where you can find ready-made implementations.
- Choosing a Platform
- Platforms & Frameworks
- Platform Limitations & Gotchas
- Repositories & Collections
- Tasks by Cognitive Domain
- Contributing
- Acknowledgments
- License
A quick decision tree for common scenarios:
- Need lab-quality timing + EEG/fMRI triggers? → PsychoPy (free) or E-Prime (paid)
- Need online + no coding? → Gorilla (paid) or lab.js + MindProbe (free)
- Need a ready-made validated task library? → Inquisit (909 tasks, paid) or Labvanced (600+ templates, freemium)
- Need free + flexible + can code JavaScript? → jsPsych + Cognition.run or JATOS
- On a tight budget with no coding skills? → PsyToolkit or OpenSesame + MindProbe
- Need multiplayer / interactive experiments? → oTree (game theory) or Empirica (real-time)
- Need to run PsychoPy experiments online? → Pavlovia (the official route, paid per participant)
- Need clinical / validated assessment batteries? → NIH Toolbox (iPad app) or Inquisit
Software for creating and running psychology experiments.
Legend — Status: 🟢 Active (regular updates) · 🟡 Maintained (occasional updates) · 🔴 Legacy/Abandoned — Timing: Lab (<1 ms, desktop) · Good (~1 ms, desktop) · Browser (~10–16 ms)
| Platform | Description | Language / Tech | Online | Status | Timing | Pricing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jsPsych | Plugin-based JavaScript framework for browser-based behavioral experiments. | JavaScript | Yes (native) | 🟢 | Browser | Free |
| PsychoPy | Full-featured experiment builder with graphical Builder and Python Coder views. Exports to JS via PsychoJS. | Python; JS (PsychoJS) | Via Pavlovia | 🟢 | Lab (desktop) / Browser (online) | Free |
| lab.js | Drag-and-drop visual experiment builder that runs in the browser. Exports to JATOS, Open Lab, Pavlovia. | JavaScript | Yes (native) | 🟢 | Browser | Free |
| OpenSesame | Graphical experiment builder with Python inline scripting. Online via OSWeb + JATOS. | Python; JS (OSWeb) | Partial (OSWeb) | 🟢 | Good (desktop) / Browser (online) | Free |
| oTree | Framework for interactive/multiplayer experiments, strong in game theory and economics. | Python (Django); JS | Yes | 🟢 | Browser | Free |
| Empirica | Platform for real-time multiplayer behavioral experiments. | JavaScript (React) | Yes | 🟢 | Browser | Free |
| TaskBeacon | Community-driven platform for sharing and standardizing psychological paradigms. AI-assisted experiment generation. | Python (PsychoPy); TypeScript (jsPsych) | Yes (psyflow-web) | 🟢 | Browser / Lab | Free |
| psychTestR | R package for behavioral experiment interfaces, strong in adaptive testing. | R (Shiny) | Yes (Shiny) | 🟡 | Browser | Free |
| PEBL | Cross-platform experiment building language with a 100+ test battery included. Now supports WebAssembly. | Custom language (SDL) | Partial (WASM) | 🟡 | Good (desktop) | Free |
| Pushkin | Platform for large-scale citizen-science online psychology experiments. | JS (React/Node); Docker | Yes | 🟡 | Browser | Free |
| Tatool Web | Framework for cognitive training and experimental tasks with a built-in task library. | JavaScript (AngularJS) | Yes | 🟡 | Browser | Free |
| Collector | Web-based experiment platform using spreadsheet-like trial definitions. | PHP, JS, MySQL | Yes | 🔴 | Browser | Free |
| Platform | Description | Language / Tech | Online | Status | Timing | Pricing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gorilla | Cloud-based drag-and-drop experiment builder with participant recruitment integration. | Web GUI; JS/HTML/CSS | Yes | 🟢 | Browser | Free to build; ~£1/participant (token system) |
| Pavlovia | Hosting platform integrated with PsychoPy. Supports PsychoJS, jsPsych, and lab.js experiments. | Web platform; JS | Yes | 🟢 | Browser | ~€1/participant (credit system) or ~£1,800/yr institutional |
| Inquisit (Millisecond) | Precise psychological measurement software (v7) with a 900+ test library. Desktop and web versions. | Proprietary scripting | Yes (Inquisit Web) | 🟢 | Lab (desktop) / Browser (web) | License (quote-based, academic pricing available) |
| E-Prime | Widely used in lab-based cognitive/neuro research. Precise timing, EEG/fMRI integration. | E-Basic (VB-like) | Limited (E-Prime Go) | 🟢 | Lab (desktop) | License ~$1,000+ |
| PsyToolkit | Free toolkit for online experiments and surveys with a built-in experiment library. | Custom scripting | Yes | 🟢 | Browser | Free |
| Testable | Web-based experiment platform with a graphical editor and template library. | Web GUI; JS | Yes | 🟢 | Browser | Free tier; $299–699/yr academic |
| FindingFive | Cloud platform using a grammar-based study design approach. Nonprofit (501(c)(3)). | JSON-like grammar | Yes | 🟢 | Browser | Free to build; $0.75/participant |
| Labvanced | No-code experiment builder with 600+ templates. Supports webcam eye-tracking. | Web GUI (proprietary) | Yes | 🟢 | Browser | Free tier; $69–299/mo paid |
| Cognition.run | Hosting platform for jsPsych experiments with automatic data collection and AI experiment generation. | Hosts jsPsych / JS | Yes | 🟡 | Browser | Freemium |
| Platform | Description | Online | Pricing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualtrics | Survey platform widely used for questionnaire-embedded RT tasks and branching logic in psychology. | Yes | Institutional license |
| REDCap | Secure web application for building and managing online surveys and databases, common in clinical psychology research. | Yes | Free (institutional) |
| NIH Toolbox | Validated neurobehavioral assessment battery (7 cognition tests). Administered via iPad app. Ages 3–85. | iPad app | License fee |
| Service | Description | Hosts Experiments From |
|---|---|---|
| JATOS | Open-source server for managing and running online experiments. | jsPsych, lab.js, OSWeb, PsychoJS, any HTML/JS |
| MindProbe | Free JATOS-based hosting by the European Society for Cognitive Psychology (ESCoP). | jsPsych, lab.js, OSWeb, PsychoJS |
| Open Lab | Free platform for hosting and sharing lab.js and jsPsych experiments. |
lab.js, jsPsych |
| Cognition.run | Free hosting with simple upload and CSV data download. | jsPsych, lab.js |
Honest notes to help you avoid common pitfalls.
- PsychoPy → Pavlovia: The Python-to-JavaScript auto-translation (PsychoJS) is the most complained-about issue in PsychoPy forums. Not all Python components translate correctly — test online early and often.
- Gorilla: Per-participant token pricing (~£1/token) adds up at scale. A 200-participant Prolific study costs ~£200 in platform fees alone, on top of participant payment. Institutional site licenses can reduce costs.
- jsPsych: Requires self-hosting unless you use Cognition.run (free) or JATOS. No built-in graphical editor — you write JavaScript.
- E-Prime: Desktop-only for full functionality. E-Prime Go (online) is significantly more limited than the desktop version. Locked to Windows. Expensive license.
- Browser timing: All browser-based platforms share a fundamental limitation — display refresh (~16 ms at 60 Hz) caps visual timing precision. For most RT-based research this is fine, but for tachistoscopic presentation or sub-millisecond timing, use desktop software.
- OpenSesame → OSWeb: Not all OpenSesame features work in the OSWeb (browser) backend. Check the OSWeb compatibility list before designing for online use.
- Inquisit: The 909-task library is a major draw, but requires a paid license even to preview scripts. Web version timing is less precise than the desktop client.
- PEBL: Development has slowed considerably, though v2.3 added WebAssembly support. The 100+ test battery remains useful but documentation is thin.
- Tatool Web: Built on AngularJS 1.x. Still receives occasional updates but not actively developed. Best for cognitive training paradigms it was designed for.
- Labvanced: Powerful no-code editor, but the proprietary format means you can't easily export experiments to other platforms.
- PsyToolkit: Great for teaching and quick studies, but the custom scripting language has a learning curve and limited flexibility compared to jsPsych or PsychoPy.
- Pavlovia: Credits cost ~€1/participant. Use "piloting mode" to test without consuming credits. Institutional licenses (~£1,800/yr) can be more economical for high-volume labs.
- oTree: Excellent for game theory and multiplayer experiments, but its Django-based architecture is heavier than needed for simple single-participant tasks. The new OTAI feature (AI-powered app builder) is experimental.
- FindingFive: The JSON-like grammar is unique but has a learning curve. At $0.75/participant it's affordable, but the format is not portable to other platforms.
Where to find ready-made experiment implementations.
| Collection | Platform | Approx. Tasks | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Millisecond Test Library | Inquisit | 909 · 573 indexed | Largest single library — covers nearly all domains of psychology. Browsable by category. |
| Labvanced Templates | Labvanced | 600+ · 64 indexed | Pre-loaded templates across cognitive, developmental, and behavioral economics. |
| Pavlovia Explore | PsychoPy/jsPsych/lab.js | Thousands · 600 indexed | Public experiments shared by the community on Pavlovia's GitLab. |
| Gorilla Open Materials | Gorilla | Hundreds · 131 indexed | Open-access experiments, tasks, and questionnaires. Clone directly into your Gorilla project. |
| E-Prime Experiment Library | E-Prime | 150+ | Ready-to-run experiments across core domains. |
| PEBL Test Battery | PEBL | 100+ · 80 indexed | Built-in battery of cognitive tests. |
| The Experiment Factory | jsPsych/Docker | 80+ · 139 indexed | Reproducible web-based experiments in Docker containers. Individual repos. |
| PsyToolkit Experiment Library | PsyToolkit | 50+ · 58 indexed | Free library of classic cognitive experiments — runnable in-browser with source code. |
| Testable Library | Testable | 50+ · 238 indexed | Ready-made classic experiment templates. |
| jsPsych Contrib | jsPsych | 30+ plugins | Community-contributed plugins and extensions (RDK, Corsi blocks, flanker, etc.). |
| jsPsych Experiment Demos | jsPsych | Demos · 4 indexed | Full example experiments from the jsPsych team. |
| Niv Lab jsPsych Demos | jsPsych | Demos · 22 indexed | Complete task implementations (two-step, bandit, etc.) with live interactive demos. |
| PsychoPyParadigms | PsychoPy | Varies · 15 indexed | Community collection of PsychoPy experiment implementations. |
| NCMlab/CognitiveTasks | Various | Varies · 12 indexed | Cognitive assessment tasks with GUIs. |
| TaskBeacon Tasks | PsychoPy / jsPsych | Growing · 39 indexed | Standardized paradigms (BART, Go/No-Go, Stop-Signal, AX-CPT, MID, Emotional Dot Probe, etc.) with structured formats. |
| Project | URL | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Many Labs 1 | OSF | 13 classic effects replicated across 36 labs. |
| Many Labs 2 | OSF | ~28 effects replicated across 100+ labs in 20+ countries. |
| Psychological Science Accelerator | psysciacc.org | Global network of 1,000+ researchers conducting large-scale collaborative studies. |
| Repository | URL | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Databrary | databrary.org | Digital data library for video/audio behavioral research data (access-controlled). |
| Open Science Framework | osf.io | General-purpose repository for research materials, data, and preprints. |
In the Implementations column, abbreviations link to ready-made versions: [PT] = PsyToolkit · [Ms] = Millisecond/Inquisit · [EF] = Experiment Factory · [Go] = Gorilla Open Materials · [Pv] = Pavlovia · [jP] = jsPsych demos · [TB] = TaskBeacon
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attention Network Test (ANT) | Combines Flanker with cue conditions to independently measure alerting, orienting, and executive attention networks. | Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the Efficiency and Independence of Attentional Networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 340-347. | PT · Pv |
| Attentional Blink | Detect two targets in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream. The second target is often missed at 200–500 ms lag. | Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 849-860. | PT |
| Cancellation Task | Participants scan a dense, static array and mark (cross out / tap) every instance of one or more target items embedded among distractors, working through the whole field under a time limit. Unlike classic visual search — which asks for a present/absent decision per display and reads efficiency off the set-size slope — cancellation requires exhaustive marking of all targets, so it indexes selective and sustained attention, visual scanning, and processing speed rather than search-decision time. A staple of clinical neuropsychology (e.g. the Bourdon–Zazzo “deux barrages”, d2, Bells, and Star Cancellation tests; “barrage” is the French term for the paradigm) and of developmental reading-attention assessment. A variant of visual search, but distinct in what it measures. | Della Sala, S., Laiacona, M., Spinnler, H., & Ubezio, C. (1992). A cancellation test: its reliability in assessing attentional deficits in Alzheimer’s disease. Psychological Medicine, 22(4), 885-901.; Huang, H.-C., & Wang, T.-Y. (2009). Stimulus effects on cancellation task performance in children with and without dyslexia. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 539-545. | |
| Change Blindness | Detect a change between two alternating scenes separated by a brief disruption (flicker, saccade, mudsplash, or gradual fade). Reveals that focal attention is required to register even large visual changes. | Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368–373.; Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(7), 261–267. | |
| Choice Reaction Time | Press one of several keys depending on which stimulus appears. RT scales with number of alternatives (Hick's law); measures speed of stimulus-response selection. | Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 11-26. | PT · Pv |
| Colavita Visual Dominance Task | Detect unimodal visual, unimodal auditory, or bimodal audio-visual stimuli. Observers reliably miss the auditory component on bimodal trials — visual dominance over audition in attention. | Pv | |
| Continuous Performance Task (CPT) | Respond to infrequent targets in a sustained stimulus stream. Measures vigilance and impulsivity. | Rosvold, H. E., Mirsky, A. F., Sarason, I., Bransome, E. D., & Beck, L. H. (1956). A continuous performance test of brain damage. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20(5), 343-350. | PT · Pv |
| Dichotic Listening | Different messages to each ear; shadow one. Measures selective auditory attention. | Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25(5), 975-979. | |
| Dual-Task Paradigm | Perform two tasks simultaneously. Performance costs reveal capacity limits and attentional resource allocation. | Pashler, H. (1994). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 330-342. | PT |
| Eriksen Flanker Task | Respond to a central target flanked by congruent or incongruent distractors. Measures focused attention and response conflict. | Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149. | PT · Pv · NIH Toolbox |
| Exogenous vs. Endogenous Cueing | Compare peripheral flash (reflexive) vs. central arrow (voluntary) cues to separate reflexive from voluntary orienting. | Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3-25. | PT |
| Global/Local (Navon) Task | Identify the global or local level of hierarchical stimuli (large letter made of small letters). | Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353-383. | PT · Pv |
| Gradual Continuous Performance Task (gradCPT) | A continuous performance task variant in which stimuli fade smoothly from one to the next (gradient cross-fades, no abrupt onsets), so target-onset times are implicit. Participants respond to frequent go-targets and withhold for rare no-go targets; the continuous fading makes withholding effortful and exposes lapses of sustained attention via commission errors, reaction-time variability, and vigilance-decrement slopes. Introduced by Esterman et al. (2013) as a sensitive probe of sustained attention. | Esterman, M., Noonan, S. K., Rosenberg, M., & DeGutis, J. (2013). In the zone or zoning out? Tracking behavioral and neural fluctuations during sustained attention. Cerebral Cortex, 23(11), 2712-2723. | |
| Inattentional Blindness | Failure to notice an unexpected stimulus during an attention-demanding primary task. | Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events. Perception, 28(9), 1059-1074. | Pv |
| Inhibition of Return (IOR) | Posner cueing variant with long intervals — slower RTs at previously cued locations. | Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S., & Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2(3), 211-228. | PT |
| Multiple Object Tracking (MOT) | Track a subset of moving objects among identical distractors. Measures attentional capacity across space and time. | Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism*. Spatial Vision, 3(3), 179-197. | |
| Negative Priming | Respond to a target that was a distractor on the preceding trial. Slowed RTs reflect lingering inhibition of previously ignored stimuli. | Tipper, S. P. (1985). The Negative Priming Effect: Inhibitory Priming by Ignored Objects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 37(4), 571-590. | PT |
| Oddball Paradigm | Frequent standard stimuli are interspersed with rare deviant (oddball) stimuli. Generates the Mismatch Negativity (MMN) and P300 ERP components; standard tool in EEG attention and change-detection research. | ||
| Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) | Digits are presented auditorily at a fixed pace; participant adds each digit to the immediately preceding one and reports the running sum. Indexes sustained attention, working memory, and processing speed; clinical staple in MS and TBI. | ||
| Posner Cueing Task | Spatial cue (valid/invalid) precedes a target. Measures covert attentional orienting and disengagement. | Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of Attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3-25. | PT · Pv |
| Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) | Two stimuli at varying SOAs each require a response. RT2 increases at short SOAs, revealing a central processing bottleneck. | Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220-244. | PT |
| Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) | Respond as fast as possible to a brief visual stimulus appearing at long, unpredictable inter-stimulus intervals (~2–10 s in 10-minute sessions). Lapses (RT > 500 ms) and reciprocal mean RT index sustained vigilance. Foundational tool in sleep-deprivation and shift-work research; test–retest reliability ICC ≈ 0.8–0.9 sets it apart from generic simple-RT tasks. | Dinges, D. F., & Powell, J. W. (1985). Microcomputer analyses of performance on a portable, simple visual RT task during sustained operations. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17(6), 652–655.; Lim, J., & Dinges, D. F. (2008). Sleep deprivation and vigilant attention. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1129(1), 305–322. | |
| Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP) | Detect target sequences (e.g., three consecutive odd numbers) in a pseudo-random digit stream. Measures sustained visual attention. | Wesnes, K., Warburton, D. M., & Matz, B. (1983). Effects of nicotine on stimulus sensitivity and response bias in a visual vigilance task. Neuropsychobiology, 9, 41-44. | Pv |
| RSVP Single-Target Detection | Detect a single target in a rapid stream of items (~10/sec). Measures temporal attention resolution. | Potter, M. C., & Levy, E. I. (1969). Recognition memory for a rapid sequence of pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 10-15. | |
| Self-Prioritization Task | Participants first learn arbitrary associations between neutral geometric shapes and labels referring to the self, a close other, and a stranger, then judge whether subsequently presented shape–label pairs match the learned mapping. Faster and more accurate responses for self-associated pairs index the rapid attentional prioritization of self-relevant stimuli. | Sui, J., He, X., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1105-1117. | |
| Simple Reaction Time | Press a single key as quickly as possible whenever any stimulus appears. Measures basic detection + motor speed; baseline for more complex RT paradigms. | Basner, M., Mollicone, D., & Dinges, D. F. (2011). Validity and sensitivity of a brief psychomotor vigilance test (PVT-B) to total and partial sleep deprivation. Acta Astronautica, 69(11-12), 949-959. | PT · Pv |
| Stroop Task | Name the ink color of color-words (e.g., "RED" in blue ink). Measures selective attention and inhibitory control. | Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. | PT · Pv |
| Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) | Respond to every stimulus except an infrequent target (reverse CPT). Commission errors index attention lapses and mind-wandering. | Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). 'Oops!': Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35(6), 747-758. | PT · Pv |
| Useful Field of View (UFOV) | Identify a central target while localizing a peripheral target. Measures spatial extent of attentional processing. | Ball, K. K., Beard, B. L., Roenker, D. L., Miller, R. L., & Griggs, D. S. (1988). Age and visual search: Expanding the useful field of view. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 5(12), 2210-2219. | |
| Value-Modulated Attentional Capture (VMAC) | During training, participants learn that certain colour singletons predict high vs. low monetary reward; in a subsequent test, these now task-irrelevant colours appear as distractors in a visual search display where reward is no longer at stake. Slower responses and increased eye-movements to high-value distractors index how learned value captures attention independently of goals and physical salience. | Le Pelley, M. E., Pearson, D., Griffiths, O., & Beesley, T. (2015). When goals conflict with values: Counterproductive attentional and oculomotor capture by reward-related stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 158-171. | |
| Visual Search | Search for a target among distractors. Set-size effects reveal parallel (pop-out) vs. serial search. | Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97-136. | PT · Pv |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brief Visuospatial Memory Test (BVMT-R) | Copy and recall geometric figures across learning trials. Tests visuospatial learning and delayed recall. | Benedict, R. H. B., Schretlen, D., Groninger, L., Dobraski, M., & Shpritz, B. (1996). Revision of the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test: Studies of normal performance, reliability, and validity. Psychological Assessment, 8(2), 145-153. | |
| Brown-Peterson Task | Memorise consonant trigrams, perform a distractor task (e.g., count backwards by threes) for a variable delay (3–18 s), then recall. Demonstrates rapid forgetting of short-term memory under proactive interference — a foundational finding for the STM/LTM distinction. | Brown, J. (1958). Some Tests of the Decay Theory of Immediate Memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10(1), 12–21.; Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 193–198. | |
| Change Detection (Visual WM) | Judge whether an item changed in a briefly viewed array after a delay. Estimates visual WM capacity (Cowan's K). | Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279-281. | PT · Pv |
| Complex Span (working memory) | Family of working-memory span tasks that interleave a processing requirement (math, reading, symmetry judgment) with serial-storage probes. Together they estimate working-memory capacity as a latent factor that loads on fluid intelligence and resists single-task contamination. Members in the current catalog: operation-span, reading-span; would gain symmetry-span if that proposal is approved. | Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and users guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. | |
| Corsi Block-Tapping | Reproduce a sequence of block taps. Measures visuospatial working memory span. | Kessels, R. P. C., van Zandvoort, M. J. E., Postma, A., Kappelle, L. J., & de Haan, E. H. F. (2000). The Corsi Block-Tapping Task: Standardization and Normative Data. Applied Neuropsychology, 7(4), 252-258. | PT · Pv · jP |
| Cross-modal Sequence Learning | Participants learn ordered sequences whose items span multiple modalities (e.g. images + spoken or written words paired with auditory cues) and are later probed on order memory and item-cue associations. Distinct from unimodal serial-recall: the cross-modal mixing forces multimodal binding rather than within-modality rehearsal, making the paradigm useful for studying how the brain integrates representations across sensory streams. | ||
| Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) | Study semantically related words; frequently falsely recall/recognize the non-presented critical lure. | Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(1), 17-22. | Pv |
| Delayed Matching to Sample (DMS) | Match a complex visual pattern to alternatives after a delay. Measures short-term visual recognition memory. | Paule, M. G., Bushnell, P. J., Maurissen, J. P. J., Wenger, G. R., Buccafusco, J. J., Chelonis, J. J., et al. (1998). Symposium overview: The use of delayed matching-to-sample procedures in studies of short-term memory in animals and humans. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 20(5), 493-502. | Pv |
| Digit Span (Forward/Backward) | Repeat digit sequences in order or reverse. Forward = storage; backward = storage + manipulation. | Jacobs, J. (1887). Experiments on "prehension". Mind, os-12(45), 75-79. | PT · Pv |
| Directed Forgetting | Some items cued "forget," others "remember." Comparing memory for each reveals intentional memory control. | Bjork, R. A. (1970). Positive forgetting: The noninterference of Items intentionally forgotten. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(3), 255-268. | Pv |
| Event Segmentation | Participants watch a continuous activity (typically a film of everyday actions) and press a key to mark perceived boundaries between meaningful events, often at coarse and fine grains. Agreement across observers, neural responses at boundaries, and the relationship between segmentation and subsequent memory index how ongoing experience is parsed into event units. | Zacks, J. M., Swallow, K. M., Vettel, J. M., & McAvoy, M. P. (2006). Visual motion and the neural correlates of event perception. Brain Research, 1076(1), 150-162. | |
| Free Recall | Study a list, then recall items in any order. Serial position effects reveal storage/retrieval dynamics. | Murdock, B. B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(5), 482-488. | |
| Hebb Repetition Learning | Recall lists of items where one list is covertly repeated across trials. Recall improves for the repeated list relative to filler lists, indexing the long-term encoding of sequential information from short-term rehearsal. | Page, M. P. A., & Norris, D. (2009). A model linking immediate serial recall, the Hebb repetition effect and the learning of phonological word forms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1536), 3737–3753. | |
| List Sorting Working Memory Test | Reorder sequences of visually and orally presented stimuli (e.g., animals by size). NIH Toolbox WM measure. | Tulsky, D. S., Carlozzi, N., Chiaravalloti, N. D., Beaumont, J. L., Kisala, P. A., Mungas, D., Conway, K., & Gershon, R. (2014). NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB): List Sorting Test to Measure Working Memory. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 20(6), 599-610. | |
| N-back | Indicate whether the current stimulus matches the one N items back. Working memory updating; difficulty scales with N. | Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 352-358. | PT · Pv · GitHub |
| Novel Word Learning | Participants are exposed to unfamiliar word forms (often paired with referents, pictures, or definitions) and are later tested on recognition, recall, or lexical integration of those items, typically after a delay including sleep. Accuracy and interference effects with existing lexical neighbours index the formation and consolidation of new lexical representations. | Gaskell, M., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89(2), 105-132. | |
| Operation Span (OSPAN) | Alternate between math problems and remembering items. Measures WM capacity under dual-task load. | Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127-154. | PT · Pv |
| Paired Associates Learning | Learn arbitrary pairs (e.g., word–word); tested via cued recall. Measures associative memory binding. | ||
| Part-Set Cuing | Providing some list items as cues paradoxically impairs recall of remaining items. Demonstrates retrieval competition. | Slamecka, N. J. (1968). An examination of trace storage in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(4, Pt.1), 504-513. | |
| Pattern Recognition Memory (PRM) | Recognize previously seen abstract visual patterns among novel foils. Measures visual pattern recognition. | Sahakian, B. J., Morris, R. G., Evenden, J. L., Heald, A., Levy, R., Philpot, M., & Robbins, T. W. (1988). A comparative study of visuospatial memory and learning in Alzheimer-type dementia and Parkinson's disease. Brain, 111(3), 695-718. | |
| Prospective Memory | Remember to perform a future action while engaged in an ongoing task. | Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 717-726. | Pv |
| Reading Span | Read sentences while remembering final words. Measures WM capacity in a language context. | van den Noort, M., Bosch, P., Haverkort, M., & Hugdahl, K. (2008). A Standard Computerized Version of the Reading Span Test in Different Languages. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 35-42. | |
| Recent Probes Task | Item-recognition task in which some negative probes were members of the immediately preceding trial's memory set, inducing proactive interference. Isolates interference resolution in working memory. | ||
| Recognition Memory | Distinguish old from new items after study. Analyzed with signal detection theory (d', criterion). | Mandler, J. M., & Read, J. D. (1980). Repeated measurement designs in picture-memory studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6(4), 400-406. | Pv |
| Reference Frame Proclivity Test (RFPT) | Solve egocentric versus allocentric heading judgments to measure an individual's preferred spatial reference frame. Distinguishes participants who encode spatial layouts relative to their own viewpoint from those who use environment-anchored frames. | Gramann, K., Müller, H. J., Eick, E.-M., & Schönebeck, B. (2005). Evidence of separable spatial representations in a virtual navigation task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1199–1223.; Goeke, C., Kornpetpanee, S., Köster, M., Fernández-Revelles, A. B., Gramann, K., & König, P. (2015). Cultural background shapes spatial reference frame proclivity. Scientific Reports, 5, 11426. | |
| Retrieval Practice / Testing Effect | After an initial study phase, participants restudy some items and attempt to recall others, then take a delayed final test on all material. Better retention for tested items than for restudied items demonstrates the testing effect and is used to quantify how active retrieval strengthens long-term memory. | Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-Enhanced Learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. | |
| Retrieval-Induced Forgetting (RIF) | Practicing retrieval of some category members impairs recall of related unpracticed items. Reveals inhibitory retrieval processes. | Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1063-1087. | |
| Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) | 15-word list across five learning trials, interference list, delayed recall. Measures verbal learning and retention. | NIH Toolbox | |
| Serial Recall | Recall items in exact presentation order. Reveals phonological similarity and word-length effects. | Lee, C. L., & Estes, W. K. (1977). Order and position in primary memory for letter strings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(4), 395-418. | |
| Source Memory | Recall contextual details about how/where information was learned. Measures episodic source monitoring. | Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3-28. | |
| Spatial Recognition Memory (SRM) | Remember spatial locations and discriminate old from novel locations after a delay. | Owen, A. M., Sahakian, B. J., Semple, J., Polkey, C. E., & Robbins, T. W. (1995). Visuo-spatial short-term recognition memory and learning after temporal lobe excisions, frontal lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man. Neuropsychologia, 33(1), 1-24. | Pv |
| Sternberg Task | Judge whether a probe was in a previously shown memory set. RT increases linearly with set size. | Sternberg, S. (1966). High-Speed Scanning in Human Memory. Science, 153(3736), 652-654. | Pv |
| Symmetry Span | Visuospatial complex-span task. Interleave symmetry judgments on geometric patterns with location-memory probes; the processing load constrains storage. Together with operation-span and reading-span forms the canonical 'Engle' complex-span trio used to estimate WM capacity as a latent factor. | Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The Generality of Working Memory Capacity: A Latent-Variable Approach to Verbal and Visuospatial Memory Span and Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 189–217.; Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Heitz, R. P., Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2009). Complex working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: A latent-variable analysis of the relationship between processing and storage. Memory, 17(6), 635–654. | Pv |
| Think/No-Think Paradigm | After learning word pairs, suppress retrieval of some targets when cued. Tests voluntary memory suppression. | Anderson, M. C., & Green, C. (2001). Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control. Nature, 410(6826), 366-369. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antisaccade | Look away from a peripheral stimulus. Measures inhibitory control of eye movements. | Hallett, P. (1978). Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions. Vision Research, 18(10), 1279-1296. | Pv |
| AX-CPT | Respond to A-then-X sequences; measures proactive vs. reactive cognitive control. | Cohen, J. D., Barch, D. M., Carter, C., & Servan-Schreiber, D. (1999). Context-processing deficits in schizophrenia: Converging evidence from three theoretically motivated cognitive tasks. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108(1), 120-133. | PT |
| Brixton Spatial Anticipation | Predict dot position as rules change. Errors after rule changes measure set-shifting. | Burgess, P. W., & Shallice, T. (1996). Bizarre Responses, Rule Detection and Frontal Lobe Lesions. Cortex, 32(2), 241-259. | |
| Choice Reaction Time | Press one of several keys depending on which stimulus appears. RT scales with number of alternatives (Hick's law); measures speed of stimulus-response selection. | Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 11-26. | PT · Pv |
| Color-Word Interference (D-KEFS) | Extended Stroop with four conditions including inhibition/switching. Part of the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System. | Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. | |
| Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) | Sort cards by one dimension (e.g., color), then switch to another (e.g., shape). NIH Toolbox EF measure. | Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS): a method of assessing executive function in children. Nature Protocols, 1(1), 297-301. | PT · NIH Toolbox |
| Go/No-Go | Respond to frequent "go" stimuli, withhold to "no-go." Measures response inhibition. | PT · Pv · jP | |
| Hayling Sentence Completion | Complete sentences with a congruent word (Part A), then an incongruent word (Part B). Part B = suppression. | Burgess, P. W., & Shallice, T. (1996). Response suppression, initiation and strategy use following frontal lobe lesions. Neuropsychologia, 34(4), 263-272. | |
| Intra-Extra Dimensional Set Shift (IED) | Learn stimulus–reward rules based on one dimension, then shift to a new dimension. Separates intra- from extradimensional shifting. | Owen, A. M., Roberts, A. C., Polkey, C. E., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (1991). Extra-dimensional versus intra-dimensional set shifting performance following frontal lobe excisions, temporal lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man. Neuropsychologia, 29(10), 993-1006. | |
| Letter-Number Sequencing | Reorder intermixed letters and numbers (numbers ascending, letters alphabetical). Measures WM manipulation. | Gold, J. M., Carpenter, C., Randolph, C., Goldberg, T. E., & Weinberger, D. R. (1997). Auditory working memory and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54(2), 159-165. | |
| Matrix Reasoning (Raven's Progressive Matrices) | Participants view a matrix (typically 3x3) of abstract patterns with one cell missing, and select the option from a set of alternatives that completes the matrix according to the implicit rule. Accuracy is used as an index of non-verbal analytic reasoning and fluid intelligence. | Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97(3), 404-431. | jP |
| Maze Solving | Navigate from start to goal through a 2-D maze. Path length, completion time, and dead-end counts index spatial planning and look-ahead. Distinct from Tower-style puzzles (which manipulate sub-goal ordering) and pursuit-tracking tasks (which manipulate continuous visuomotor control). | Porteus, S. D. (1959). The Maze Test and clinical psychology. Pacific Books. | |
| Pattern Comparison Processing Speed | Judge whether two side-by-side visual patterns are same or different as quickly as possible. NIH Toolbox processing speed measure. | Carlozzi, N. E., Beaumont, J. L., Tulsky, D. S., & Gershon, R. C. (2015). The NIH Toolbox Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test: Normative Data. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 30(5), 359-368. | Pv |
| Random Generation Task | Generate sequences (digits, letters, key-presses) intended to be random in time with a pacing signal (often 1 Hz or 2 Hz). Deviations from randomness — counting strings, alphabet/numeric runs, repetition avoidance, response biases — index inhibitory control over prepotent sequences and are a classic executive-function probe. | Baddeley, A. D. (1966). The Capacity for Generating Information by Randomization. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(2), 119–129.; Towse, J. N., & Neil, D. (1998). Analyzing human random generation behavior: A review of methods used and a computer program for describing performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30(4), 583–591. | |
| Recent Probes Task | Item-recognition task in which some negative probes were members of the immediately preceding trial's memory set, inducing proactive interference. Isolates interference resolution in working memory. | ||
| Simon Task | Respond based on a non-spatial feature while stimulus location is congruent/incongruent with the response. | Simon, J. R., & Wolf, J. D. (1963). Choice reaction time as a function of angular stimulus-response correspondence and age. Ergonomics, 6(1), 99-105. | PT · Pv |
| Spatial Planning | Family of tasks requiring a participant to mentally search a problem space and produce a move sequence (or route) that achieves a goal under spatial constraints. Distinct from continuous visuomotor control (pursuit, tracking) and from rule-switching paradigms. Members in the current catalog: tower-of-london-hanoi, stockings-of-cambridge; would gain maze-solving and traveling-salesman-problem if those proposals are approved. | Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 298(1089), 199–209. | |
| Stockings of Cambridge (SOC) | Plan a sequence of moves to match a goal arrangement of colored balls (computerized Tower of London). | Owen, A. M., Downes, J. J., Sahakian, B. J., Polkey, C. E., & Robbins, T. W. (1990). Planning and spatial working memory following frontal lobe lesions in man. Neuropsychologia, 28(10), 1021-1034. | |
| Stop-Signal Task | Cancel an initiated response when a stop signal appears. SSRT estimates inhibitory control speed. | Logan, G. D., Cowan, W. B., & Davis, K. A. (1984). On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: A model and a method. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(2), 276-291. | PT · Pv |
| Task Switching | Alternate between tasks; switch cost measures mental set reconfiguration. | Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207-231. | PT · Pv |
| Tower of London / Hanoi | Rearrange disks to match a goal in minimum moves. Measures planning and problem-solving. | Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences, 298(1089), 199-209. | PT · Pv |
| Trail Making Test (TMT) | Part A: connect numbers. Part B: alternate numbers and letters. B–A indexes cognitive flexibility. | Reitan, R. M. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an Indicator of Organic Brain Damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8(3), 271-276. | Pv |
| Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) | Visit each of N points exactly once and return to start, minimising total path length. Performance reflects spatial planning and route-optimisation heuristics; humans typically solve small instances (N ≤ 20) near-optimally despite the NP-hard formulation. Distinct from Tower-style puzzles in lacking sub-goal structure. | MacGregor, J. N., & Ormerod, T. (1996). Human performance on the traveling salesman problem. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(4), 527–539.; Vickers, D., Lee, M. D., Dry, M., & Hughes, P. (2003). The roles of the convex hull and the number of potential intersections in performance on visually presented traveling salesperson problems. Memory & Cognition, 31(7), 1094–1104. | |
| Verbal Fluency (FAS / Category) | Generate words starting with a letter or from a category within a time limit. | Gruenewald, P. J., & Lockhead, G. R. (1980). The free recall of category examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(3), 225-240. | |
| Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) | Sort cards by an unknown, shifting rule. Perseverative errors measure cognitive flexibility. | Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. The Journal of General Psychology, 39(1), 15-22. | PT · Pv |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) | Pump a virtual balloon for increasing reward; risk losing all if it pops. Indexes risk-taking propensity. | Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Strong, D. R., & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75-84. | PT · Pv |
| Beads Task (Jumping to Conclusions) | Draw beads from jars of known ratios; decide which jar they come from. Fewer draws = jumping to conclusions bias. | Phillips, L. D., & Edwards, W. (1966). Conservatism in a simple probability inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(3), 346-354. | Pv |
| Cambridge Gambling Task (CGT) | Bet on outcomes with explicit probabilities displayed. Separates risk-taking from learning. | Rogers, R. D., Owen, A. M., Middleton, H. C., Williams, E. J., Pickard, J. D., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (1999). Choosing between Small, Likely Rewards and Large, Unlikely Rewards Activates Inferior and Orbital Prefrontal Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19(20), 9029-9038. | |
| Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) | Short item set (typically 3-7 questions) where the intuitive answer is wrong and reflection is required to reach the correct one (e.g. "A bat and ball cost $1.10…"). Scores reflective vs. heuristic thinking. | Extended IQ & Cognitive Bias Challenge — 20-question browser tool covering CRT (bat/ball, lily pad, machines) plus Monty Hall, Linda problem, Wason task, gambler's fallacy, anchoring. Free, no login. | |
| Decisions from Experience | Participants sample from payoff distributions before choosing, rather than seeing described probabilities. Reveals the description–experience gap. | Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534-539. | |
| Delay Discounting | Choose between smaller-sooner and larger-later rewards. Discounting steepness measures impulsivity. | Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55(2), 233-244. | Pv |
| Dictator Game | One player allocates money to a passive other. Purer measure of altruism/prosocial preferences. | Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., & Zwick, R. (1998). Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. International Journal of Game Theory, 27(2), 269-299. | |
| Effort-Based Decision Making (EEfRT) | Choose low-effort/low-reward vs. high-effort/high-reward tasks. Measures motivation and effort discounting. | Treadway, M. T., Buckholtz, J. W., Schwartzman, A. N., Lambert, W. E., & Zald, D. H. (2009). Worth the ‘EEfRT’? The Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task as an Objective Measure of Motivation and Anhedonia. PLoS ONE, 4(8), e6598. | |
| Footbridge Dilemma | Decide whether to push a person to stop a trolley killing five. "Personal" moral dilemma engaging stronger emotional processing. | Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105-2108. | |
| Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) | Choose from four decks with varying reward/punishment. Measures affective decision-making under ambiguity. | Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1-3), 7-15. | PT · Pv |
| Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) Task | Cue signals potential monetary gain or loss; participant must respond fast enough to a target to win/avoid the outcome. Dissociates reward anticipation from receipt; widely used in fMRI reward research. | ||
| Moral Foundations Questionnaire | Rate the relevance of moral principles (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity) to moral judgments. | Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366-385. | |
| Outcome Devaluation | After learning an action–outcome association, the outcome is devalued. Sensitivity distinguishes goal-directed from habitual behavior. | Adams, C. D., & Dickinson, A. (1981). Instrumental responding following reinforcer devaluation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 33(2b), 109-121. | |
| Patch Foraging (Explore–Exploit) | Participants harvest depleting reward patches (e.g., trees yielding apples at a diminishing rate) and choose on each step whether to keep exploiting the current patch or pay a travel cost to move on. Patch-leaving times, compared against the marginal value theorem's optimal threshold, index explore–exploit balance and sensitivity to opportunity cost. | Charnov, E. L. (1976). Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology, 9(2), 129-136. | |
| Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer (PIT) | Pavlovian cues associated with outcomes bias instrumental responding toward the associated action. | Estes, W. K. (1948). Discriminative conditioning. II. Effects of a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus upon a subsequently established operant response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(2), 173-177. | |
| Prisoner's Dilemma | Cooperate or defect; iterated versions measure cooperation strategies. | Axelrod, R. (1985). 19 The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists. Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation, 320-339. | |
| Public Goods Game | Contribute to a shared pool (multiplied, redistributed). Measures cooperation and free-riding. | Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1979). Experiments on the provision of public goods. I. Resources, interest, group size, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of Sociology, 84(6), 1335-1360. | |
| Risk-Sensitive Learning Task | Reinforcement-learning variant where one option delivers a fixed payoff and the other a variance-matched gamble with the same expected value. Probes how learning history shapes risk preferences and asymmetric value updating. | jP | |
| Spatial Exploration Bandit | Participants choose locations on a 2D grid to discover hidden rewards, aiming to maximise cumulative score across a fixed number of rounds. Combines elements of multi-armed bandits (each cell is an arm with an unknown reward) and spatial exploration (the spatial layout encourages structured rather than random search). Distinct from patch-foraging (no patch depletion) and the classical two-armed bandit (large action space + spatial structure). | ||
| Trolley Dilemma | Decide whether to divert a trolley to kill one person to save five. Classic moral dilemma indexing utilitarian reasoning. | Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105-2108. | |
| Trust Game | Investor sends money (multiplied) to trustee who decides return. Measures trust and reciprocity. | Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122-142. | |
| Two-Step Task (Markov Decision Task) | Two-stage choice with probabilistic state transitions and drifting reward probabilities. Dissociates model-based from model-free reinforcement learning via stay/switch patterns after rare vs. common transitions. | jP | |
| Ultimatum Game | Proposer splits money; responder accepts or rejects. Measures fairness norms and punishment. | Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367-388. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apparent Motion | Two spatially separated stimuli in alternation produce the illusion of movement. Probes motion correspondence mechanisms. | Pv | |
| Backward Masking | A briefly presented target is immediately followed by a mask, rendering it invisible. Measures temporal limits of conscious perception. | Breitmeyer, B. G., & Ogmen, H. (2000). Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(8), 1572-1595. | Pv |
| Binocular Rivalry | Different images to each eye; perception alternates. Probes perceptual competition and conscious awareness. | Blake, R., & Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Visual competition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(1), 13-21. | |
| Biological Motion (Point-Light Walker) | Identify actions from sparse point-light displays. | Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14(2), 201-211. | |
| Change Blindness | Detect a change between two alternating scenes separated by a brief disruption (flicker, saccade, mudsplash, or gradual fade). Reveals that focal attention is required to register even large visual changes. | Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368–373.; Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(7), 261–267. | |
| Change Detection (Visual WM) | Judge whether an item changed in a briefly viewed array after a delay. Estimates visual WM capacity (Cowan's K). | Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279-281. | PT · Pv |
| Colavita Visual Dominance Task | Detect unimodal visual, unimodal auditory, or bimodal audio-visual stimuli. Observers reliably miss the auditory component on bimodal trials — visual dominance over audition in attention. | Pv | |
| Composite Face Task | The top half of one face is aligned with the bottom half of another, creating a fused 'composite' that is processed holistically when upright. Participants judge whether the top (or bottom) halves of two composites are the same, with misalignment and inversion as manipulations that break holistic processing. Canonical paradigm for measuring configural / holistic face perception. | Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16(6), 747-759. | Pv |
| Continuous Flash Suppression (CFS) | High-contrast dynamic patterns to one eye suppress a static target in the other from awareness. Measures unconscious visual processing. | Tsuchiya, N., & Koch, C. (2004). Continuous flash suppression. Journal of Vision, 4(8), 61-61. | |
| Contour Integration | Detect aligned Gabor elements forming a path among random elements. Measures contour grouping. | Field, D. J., Hayes, A., & Hess, R. F. (1993). Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local "association field". Vision Research, 33(2), 173-193. | |
| Crowding | Identify a peripheral target flanked by nearby distractors. Impaired identification probes spatial limits of object recognition. | BOUMA, H. (1970). Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition. Nature, 226(5241), 177-178. | |
| Ebbinghaus Illusion | Judge the relative size of a central circle surrounded by either larger or smaller flanking circles. The central circle appears smaller when flanked by larger circles, larger when flanked by smaller ones. Reveals contextual size-contrast effects in visual perception. | Coren, S., & Enns, J. T. (1993). Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Perception & Psychophysics, 54(5), 579–588. | |
| Embedded Figures Test | Locate a simple shape within a complex pattern. Measures field independence. | Witkin, H. A. (1950). Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19(1), 1-15. | |
| Event Segmentation | Participants watch a continuous activity (typically a film of everyday actions) and press a key to mark perceived boundaries between meaningful events, often at coarse and fine grains. Agreement across observers, neural responses at boundaries, and the relationship between segmentation and subsequent memory index how ongoing experience is parsed into event units. | Zacks, J. M., Swallow, K. M., Vettel, J. M., & McAvoy, M. P. (2006). Visual motion and the neural correlates of event perception. Brain Research, 1076(1), 150-162. | |
| Fast Periodic Visual Stimulation (FPVS) | Stimuli are presented at a fixed base frequency (typically 6 Hz) with a different stimulus type — an "oddball" — appearing periodically (e.g. every 5th image, giving 1.2 Hz). EEG responses at the oddball frequency (and its harmonics, excluding base-frequency multiples) provide an objective, implicit index of how readily the brain discriminates the oddball category from the base. The 6 Hz response indexes general visual processing. Widely used for face individuation, object categorisation, and semantic categorisation without requiring explicit behavioural responses. | ||
| Gabor Patch Detection | Detect presence/orientation of Gabor patches at varying contrasts. Measures visual sensitivity. | Daugman, J. G. (1985). Uncertainty relation for resolution in space, spatial frequency, and orientation optimized by two-dimensional visual cortical filters. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2(7), 1160. | |
| Glasgow Face Matching Test (GFMT) | Unfamiliar-face matching: decide whether two simultaneously presented face photographs (typically taken with different cameras) depict the same identity. Distinct from face memory tasks — taps perceptual face matching without memory load. | Pv | |
| Judgment of Line Orientation (JLO) | Match the orientation of two angled lines to a response array. Measures visuospatial perception. | Benton, A. L. (1978). Visuospatial Judgment. Archives of Neurology, 35(6), 364. | |
| McGurk Effect | Mismatched audio (e.g. /ba/) and visual (e.g. /ga/) syllables fuse into a third percept (e.g. /da/). Indexes audiovisual integration in speech perception. | ||
| Mental Rotation | Judge whether two rotated 3D objects are same or mirror images. RT scales with angular disparity. | Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects. Science, 171(3972), 701-703. | PT · Pv |
| Muller-Lyer Illusion | Judge line lengths with inward/outward arrowheads. Measures susceptibility to geometric illusions. | Pv | |
| Oddball Paradigm | Frequent standard stimuli are interspersed with rare deviant (oddball) stimuli. Generates the Mismatch Negativity (MMN) and P300 ERP components; standard tool in EEG attention and change-detection research. | ||
| Psychophysical Staircase | Stimulus intensity adjusted trial-by-trial to converge on perceptual threshold. | Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed Up-Down Methods in Psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49(2B), 467-477. | Pv |
| Random Dot Motion (RDK) | Judge global motion direction with varying coherence levels. Measures motion perception and perceptual decision-making. | Newsome, W., & Pare, E. (1988). A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT). The Journal of Neuroscience, 8(6), 2201-2211. | Pv |
| Reference Frame Proclivity Test (RFPT) | Solve egocentric versus allocentric heading judgments to measure an individual's preferred spatial reference frame. Distinguishes participants who encode spatial layouts relative to their own viewpoint from those who use environment-anchored frames. | Gramann, K., Müller, H. J., Eick, E.-M., & Schönebeck, B. (2005). Evidence of separable spatial representations in a virtual navigation task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1199–1223.; Goeke, C., Kornpetpanee, S., Köster, M., Fernández-Revelles, A. B., Gramann, K., & König, P. (2015). Cultural background shapes spatial reference frame proclivity. Scientific Reports, 5, 11426. | |
| Simultaneity Judgment (SJ) | Judge whether two stimuli appeared at the same time or at different times. Measures temporal binding window. | Hirsh, I. J., & Sherrick, C. E. (1961). Perceived order in different sense modalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(5), 423-432. | |
| Sound–Shape Correspondence (Bouba–Kiki) | Match novel non-words (e.g. "bouba" vs "kiki") to rounded or angular shapes. Reveals systematic crossmodal mappings between speech sounds and visual form, robust across cultures and ages. | Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: sound–shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316–322. | |
| Speech-in-Noise | Participants listen to spoken targets (words, digits, or sentences) presented over background noise (e.g., speech-shaped noise, multi-talker babble) at varying signal-to-noise ratios and repeat or identify the target. The signal-to-noise ratio yielding a criterion level of accuracy provides a sensitive index of speech reception threshold and listening effort under adverse conditions. | Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(2), 1085-1099. | |
| Temporal Order Judgment (TOJ) | Report which of two stimuli appeared first. Measures temporal resolution. | Hirsh, I. J., & Sherrick, C. E. (1961). Perceived order in different sense modalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(5), 423-432. | Pv |
| Time Reproduction / Interval Timing | Reproduce the duration of a presented interval. Measures internal clock precision and scalar timing. | GIBBON, J., CHURCH, R. M., & MECK, W. H. (1984). Scalar Timing in Memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 423(1), 52-77. | Pv |
| Vernier Acuity | Judge the offset of two line segments. Measures hyperacuity — spatial resolution finer than photoreceptor spacing. | Westheimer, G., & McKee, S. P. (1977). Spatial configurations for visual hyperacuity. Vision Research, 17(8), 941-947. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accent Perception | Listeners hear speech in different regional, social, or non-native accents and rate or categorize the speakers along social-evaluative dimensions (e.g. friendliness, intelligence, geographic origin) or make perceptual judgements (intelligibility, dialect identification). Developmental version (Kinzler line) tracks the emergence of accent-based social preferences in children. | Kinzler, K. D., & DeJesus, J. M. (2013). Northern = smart and Southern = nice: The development of accent attitudes in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(6), 1146-1158. | |
| Auditory Naming | Participant hears a short verbal definition or description (e.g. 'a small animal that says meow') and produces the corresponding word. Complementary to picture (visual) naming for assessing word retrieval and language localization; preferentially probes anterior temporal-lobe language processing in cortical-stimulation studies. | Hamberger, M. J., & Seidel, W. T. (2003). Auditory and visual naming tests: Normative and patient data for accuracy, response time, and tip-of-the-tongue. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(3), 479-489. | |
| Categorical Perception | Participants categorise stimuli that vary along an acoustic continuum (most commonly speech sounds) into discrete perceptual categories. The hallmark is sharper discrimination across category boundaries than within. Heavily used in studies of phoneme perception, especially non-native speech learning (e.g. /r/–/l/ for Japanese listeners, dental vs retroflex for English listeners). | ||
| Cookie Theft Picture Description | Examiner shows the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) Cookie Theft picture (a kitchen scene with an overflowing sink and two children stealing cookies) and asks the participant to describe everything they see. Standard connected-speech elicitation task used to assess narrative production, lexical retrieval, and information content in aphasia, dementia, and progressive language disorders. | Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1972). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Lea & Febiger. (Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination — Cookie Theft picture introduced in the BDAE as a sub-test of conversational/expository speech; revised editions 1983 and 2001.) | |
| Cross-Modal Priming | Auditory sentence + visual word probe at critical points. RT to probe reveals real-time lexical activation during speech. | Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645-659. | |
| Discourse Particle Pragmatics | Measure comprehension of discourse and modal particles (German doch / ja, English even) by manipulating context and recording acceptability, RT, or visual-world looks. Probes how speakers integrate context-sensitive meaning beyond truth-conditional content. | ||
| Garden Path Sentences | Sentences with temporary syntactic ambiguity lead to initial misparse and recovery. Reading time increase measures reanalysis. | Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178-210. | |
| Grammaticality Judgment | Participant reads or hears sentences and judges whether each is grammatically acceptable. Sentence sets manipulate specific syntactic structures (filler-gap dependencies, agreement, binding, word order) to probe metalinguistic knowledge. Widely used in aphasia, L2 acquisition, and child-language research. | Linebarger, M. C., Schwartz, M. F., & Saffran, E. M. (1983). Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition, 13(3), 361-392. | |
| Head-Turn Preference Procedure (HPP) | Infant is seated between two side lights and audio speakers. A flashing light attracts the infant's gaze toward a speaker; a sustained auditory stimulus then plays from that side and continues until the infant looks away. Looking time toward each side serves as an index of relative interest in the two auditory stimulus types. Standard methodology for testing infant speech perception, word segmentation, and phonotactic learning. | Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Mandel, D. R., Myers, J., Turk, A., & Gerken, L. (1995). The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception. Infant Behavior and Development, 18(1), 111-116. | |
| Language Aptitude | Battery-style tasks estimating a learner’s capacity to acquire a new language. Participants are taught the vocabulary and grammar of an artificial or unfamiliar language in a short session, then tested via translation, rule application, or production. Standard instrument: Carroll & Sapon’s Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT). | ||
| Lexical Decision | Classify letter strings as real words or nonwords. Reveals lexical access speed and word frequency effects. | Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227-234. | PT · Pv |
| Looking-While-Listening | Infant or child views two pictures on a screen while hearing a spoken sentence labelling one of them; eye movements to the target picture are tracked over time. Developmental adaptation of the visual world paradigm, used to measure speed and accuracy of spoken-word recognition in young children. Standard in infant psycholinguistics; underpins the Peekbank repository of looking-while-listening datasets. | Fernald, A., Pinto, J. P., Swingley, D., Weinberg, A., & McRoberts, G. W. (1998). Rapid gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the 2nd year. Psychological Science, 9(3), 228-231. | |
| Masked Priming | A very briefly presented, masked prime word facilitates recognition of a related target. Reveals automatic lexical processing. | Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4), 680-698. | Pv |
| Maze Task | Reveal a sentence word-by-word; at each word the participant chooses between the correct continuation and a contextually-implausible distractor. Selection RT is a more localised index of incremental parsing difficulty than self-paced reading. Variants include G-Maze (grammatical distractors) and A-Maze / iMaze (distractors generated by a language model). | Forster, K. I., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 163-171. | |
| McGurk Effect | Mismatched audio (e.g. /ba/) and visual (e.g. /ga/) syllables fuse into a third percept (e.g. /da/). Indexes audiovisual integration in speech perception. | ||
| Narrative Comprehension (Naturalistic Listening) | Participant listens to or reads an extended naturalistic narrative (spoken story, podcast, audio-book passage, or film soundtrack) while neural activity is recorded with fMRI, EEG, MEG, or fNIRS. Used to study how the brain integrates linguistic information across long time-scales; analysis typically relies on inter-subject correlation (ISC) or model-based encoding of linguistic features. Underpins large open datasets such as the Narratives collection and the Pieman corpus on OpenNeuro. | Hasson, U., Nir, Y., Levy, I., Fuhrmann, G., & Malach, R. (2004). Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision. Science, 303(5664), 1634-1640. | |
| Nonword Repetition | Repeat novel nonsense words of increasing length. Measures phonological short-term memory. | Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). Nonword repetition, phonological memory, and vocabulary: A reply to Snowling, Chiat, and Hulme. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(3), 375-379. | |
| Novel Word Learning | Participants are exposed to unfamiliar word forms (often paired with referents, pictures, or definitions) and are later tested on recognition, recall, or lexical integration of those items, typically after a delay including sleep. Accuracy and interference effects with existing lexical neighbours index the formation and consolidation of new lexical representations. | Gaskell, M., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89(2), 105-132. | |
| Oral Reading Recognition | Read aloud single words of increasing difficulty. NIH Toolbox reading decoding measure. | Gershon, R. C., Cook, K. F., Mungas, D., Manly, J. J., Slotkin, J., Beaumont, J. L., & Weintraub, S. (2014). Language measures of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 20(6), 642-651. | NIH Toolbox |
| Orthographic Decision | Participant judges whether a written letter string conforms to the orthographic conventions of a language (typically: correctly spelled vs misspelt). Distinct from Lexical Decision (real vs non-word): orthographic decision probes orthographic processing and spelling knowledge specifically. Common in developmental reading assessment. | ||
| Phoneme Monitoring | Detect a target phoneme in speech. Measures speech segmentation. | Foss, D. J. (1969). Decision processes during sentence comprehension: Effects of lexical item difficulty and position upon decision times. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(4), 457-462. | |
| Phonological Awareness | Family of tasks that probe a participant’s awareness of and ability to manipulate the sound structure of language at the syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme level. Includes rhyme judgment, phoneme deletion, syllable counting, and segmentation. A foundational predictor of reading acquisition in school-age children. | ||
| Picture Naming | Name depicted objects as quickly as possible. Sensitive to lexical retrieval and word frequency. | Snodgrass, J. G. (1980). Towards a model for picture and word processing. Processing of Visible Language, 565-584. | |
| Picture Vocabulary Test | Select from four pictures the one matching a spoken word. NIH Toolbox receptive vocabulary measure. | Gershon, R. C., Cook, K. F., Mungas, D., Manly, J. J., Slotkin, J., Beaumont, J. L., & Weintraub, S. (2014). Language measures of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 20(6), 642-651. | NIH Toolbox |
| Picture–Written Word Matching | Participant sees a picture and selects the matching written word (or short sentence) from a small set of alternatives. Inverse of Written Word–Picture Matching; probes word-reading and orthographic mapping. A reading-modality variant of the Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). | ||
| Presupposition Projection | Probe how presuppositions triggered by definite descriptions, factive verbs, or aspectual operators behave under entailment-cancelling embeddings (negation, modals, conditionals, questions). Measures inferential commitment via acceptability or reading-time disruption — the canonical example is The king of France is bald under negation. | Belnap, N. D. (1966). Questions, Answers, and Presuppositions. The Journal of Philosophy, 63(20), 609-611. | |
| Pronoun Resolution (Binding Principles) | Participant hears a sentence containing a pronoun or reflexive (e.g. 'Mama Bear is washing her' vs 'Mama Bear is washing herself') and judges its truth against a picture. Tests knowledge of the syntactic binding principles (Principle A for reflexives, Principle B for pronouns) and their pragmatic counterparts. Canonical developmental probe of the Delay of Principle B Effect. | Chien, Y.-C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1(3), 225-295. | |
| Reading Comprehension | Participant silently reads a short text and answers questions about its content. Standard educational and clinical assessment of reading comprehension, distinct from naturalistic-listening narrative comprehension paradigms. | ||
| Reference Game | Two-participant signaling task: a sender describes a target referent (often a colour patch or shape) so a receiver can identify it from a set of distractors. Reveals informativity calculations, lexical alignment across turns, and reference-frame coordination. Distinct from the Director Task, which is single-participant perspective-taking. | Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1(1-12), 113-114. | |
| Scalar Implicature | Probe pragmatic enrichment of scalar terms (some, or, might) to their upper-bounded interpretation (some-but-not-all, exclusive or, possible-but-not-certain). Typically measured via acceptability judgements, truth-value judgements, or selection RTs on under-informative sentences. | Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 437-457. | |
| Self-Paced Reading | Press a key to reveal each word; reading times at critical regions reveal parsing strategies. | Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228-238. | PT · Pv |
| Semantic Priming | A related prime speeds target recognition. Measures spreading activation in semantic memory. | Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106(3), 226-254. | Pv |
| Sentence Completion (Cloze) | Complete a sentence with the most likely word. Cloze probability used in ERP research (N400). | Taylor, W. L. (1953). 'Cloze procedure': A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30(4), 415-433. | |
| Sentence Verification | Judge true/false (e.g., "A canary is a bird"). Indexes category typicality. | Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1970). Does category size affect categorization time?. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(4), 432-438. | Pv |
| Single-Word Reading | Participant silently reads single written words (or sentences presented word-by-word, RSVP-style) while behavioural or neural responses are recorded. Distinct from word-naming (which involves articulation) and lexical-decision (which involves an explicit word/non-word judgement). The backbone paradigm for ERP and MEG studies of orthographic, lexical, and semantic access. | ||
| Sound–Shape Correspondence (Bouba–Kiki) | Match novel non-words (e.g. "bouba" vs "kiki") to rounded or angular shapes. Reveals systematic crossmodal mappings between speech sounds and visual form, robust across cultures and ages. | Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: sound–shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316–322. | |
| Speech-in-Noise | Participants listen to spoken targets (words, digits, or sentences) presented over background noise (e.g., speech-shaped noise, multi-talker babble) at varying signal-to-noise ratios and repeat or identify the target. The signal-to-noise ratio yielding a criterion level of accuracy provides a sensitive index of speech reception threshold and listening effort under adverse conditions. | Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(2), 1085-1099. | |
| Spoken Word–Written Form Matching | Participant hears a word (or pronounceable non-word) and selects the matching written form from a small set of alternatives. Tests phoneme-to-grapheme mapping and orthographic word recognition in a cross-modal variant of the Lexical Decision Task. Non-word trials probe systematic decoding rather than lexical lookup. | ||
| Syntactic Priming | Exposure to a syntactic structure (e.g., passive) increases production of that structure in subsequent sentences. | Bock, J. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355-387. | |
| Visual World Paradigm | Eye movements to objects during spoken language reveal real-time word recognition. | Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of Visual and Linguistic Information in Spoken Language Comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632-1634. | |
| Word Naming (Pronunciation) | Read aloud presented words. Naming latency reflects phonological encoding and regularity effects. | Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174-215. | Pv |
| Word Superiority Effect | Letters identified more accurately when embedded in words than in nonwords or alone. Demonstrates top-down influence. | Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(2), 275-280. | Pv |
| Written Word–Picture Matching | Participant reads a written word (or short sentence) and selects the matching picture from a small set of alternatives. A reading-modality variant of the Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT): probes receptive vocabulary and reading comprehension at the word level. Used in early-reading assessment for school-age children. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accent Perception | Listeners hear speech in different regional, social, or non-native accents and rate or categorize the speakers along social-evaluative dimensions (e.g. friendliness, intelligence, geographic origin) or make perceptual judgements (intelligibility, dialect identification). Developmental version (Kinzler line) tracks the emergence of accent-based social preferences in children. | Kinzler, K. D., & DeJesus, J. M. (2013). Northern = smart and Southern = nice: The development of accent attitudes in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(6), 1146-1158. | |
| Asch Conformity Paradigm | Judge line lengths after confederates give unanimously wrong answers. Measures conformity to social pressure. | Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35. | |
| Cambridge Face Memory Test | Learn and identify faces. Measures face recognition ability. | Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2006). The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants. Neuropsychologia, 44(4), 576-585. | |
| Cyberball | Virtual ball-tossing game where the participant is gradually excluded. Measures social exclusion effects. | Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 748-762. | Pv |
| Director Task | Take into account another person's visual perspective when selecting objects. Measures perspective-taking. | Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking Perspective in Conversation: The Role of Mutual Knowledge in Comprehension. Psychological Science, 11(1), 32-38. | |
| Distributive Justice / Resource Allocation | Participant decides how to distribute resources (stickers, coins, snacks) among recipients who differ on dimensions such as need, merit, group membership, or prior generosity. Used to study the development of cooperation, fairness, in-group bias, and reciprocity from preschool age onward. | Olson, K. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2008). Foundations of cooperation in young children. Cognition, 108(1), 222-231. | |
| Empathy for Pain Paradigm | Observe another person receiving a painful stimulus while neural/physiological responses are measured. | Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157-1162. | |
| Face Inversion Effect | Recognize upright vs. inverted faces. Disproportionate inversion cost demonstrates configural face processing. | Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 141-145. | |
| False Belief Task (Sally-Anne) | Predict where a character will look for an object moved in their absence. First-order theory of mind. | Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind"? Cognition, 21(1), 37-46. | |
| Faux Pas Recognition | Identify social faux pas in stories. Measures advanced theory of mind. | Stone, V. E., Baron-Cohen, S., & Knight, R. T. (1998). Frontal lobe contributions to theory of mind. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(5), 640-656. | |
| Gaze Cueing | A central face looks left/right before a target. Measures automatic social attention following. | Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 490-495. | Pv |
| Heider-Simmel Animation | Describe movements of geometric shapes. Reveals spontaneous social/intentional attribution. | Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243. | |
| Implicit Association Test (IAT) | Rapidly categorize stimuli along two dimensions; RT difference measures implicit bias. | Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480. | PT · Pv |
| Milgram Obedience Paradigm | Administer apparent electric shocks under authority instruction. Measures obedience to authority figures. | Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. | |
| Minimal Group Paradigm | Categorize participants into arbitrary groups; measure in-group favoritism in resource allocation. | Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96-102. | |
| Reading the Mind in the Eyes (RMET) | Infer mental states from photographs of the eye region. Measures advanced theory of mind. | Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' Test Revised Version: A Study with Normal Adults, and Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High-functioning Autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(2), 241-251. | |
| Reference Game | Two-participant signaling task: a sender describes a target referent (often a colour patch or shape) so a receiver can identify it from a set of distractors. Reveals informativity calculations, lexical alignment across turns, and reference-frame coordination. Distinct from the Director Task, which is single-participant perspective-taking. | Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1(1-12), 113-114. | |
| Selective Trust | Two informants label or describe novel objects: one is consistently accurate or knowledgeable, the other inaccurate or ignorant. Children are then asked which informant to learn from, ask, or endorse. Measures the developmental emergence of epistemic vigilance and trust calibration to informant reliability. | Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76(6), 1261-1277. | |
| Self-Prioritization Task | Participants first learn arbitrary associations between neutral geometric shapes and labels referring to the self, a close other, and a stranger, then judge whether subsequently presented shape–label pairs match the learned mapping. Faster and more accurate responses for self-associated pairs index the rapid attentional prioritization of self-relevant stimuli. | Sui, J., He, X., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1105-1117. | |
| Stereotype Threat | Participants from a negatively stereotyped group complete a diagnostic task (e.g., a difficult cognitive test) after a manipulation that makes the stereotype salient (such as reporting group identity or being told the task is diagnostic of ability). Performance decrements relative to a non-threat control condition index how stereotype salience disrupts task execution. | Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811. | |
| Strange Situation | Caregiver–infant separations and reunions in a structured lab setting. Classifies attachment styles. | Main, M. (1979). The ultimate causation of some infant attachment phenomena: further answers, further phenomena, and further questions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(4), 640-643. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Grammar Learning | Study strings from a finite-state grammar; classify new strings as grammatical or not. | Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(6), 855-863. | |
| Classical (Pavlovian) Conditioning | Neutral stimulus paired with US until it elicits a conditioned response. | Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It's not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43(3), 151-160. | Pv |
| Contextual Cueing | Repeated spatial configurations speed visual search without explicit awareness. | Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual Cueing: Implicit Learning and Memory of Visual Context Guides Spatial Attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28-71. | |
| Cross-modal Sequence Learning | Participants learn ordered sequences whose items span multiple modalities (e.g. images + spoken or written words paired with auditory cues) and are later probed on order memory and item-cue associations. Distinct from unimodal serial-recall: the cross-modal mixing forces multimodal binding rather than within-modality rehearsal, making the paradigm useful for studying how the brain integrates representations across sensory streams. | ||
| Fear Conditioning and Extinction | Tone (CS) paired with shock (US); CS alone then elicits fear. Extinction via CS-alone trials. | LaBar, K. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., LeDoux, J. E., & Phelps, E. A. (1998). Human Amygdala Activation during Conditioned Fear Acquisition and Extinction: a Mixed-Trial fMRI Study. Neuron, 20(5), 937-945. | |
| Hebb Repetition Learning | Recall lists of items where one list is covertly repeated across trials. Recall improves for the repeated list relative to filler lists, indexing the long-term encoding of sequential information from short-term rehearsal. | Page, M. P. A., & Norris, D. (2009). A model linking immediate serial recall, the Hebb repetition effect and the learning of phonological word forms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1536), 3737–3753. | |
| Information Integration Category Learning | Categorize stimuli by integrating multiple dimensions (not easily verbalized). Relies on implicit systems. | Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., & Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105(3), 442-481. | Pv |
| Instrumental (Operant) Conditioning | Participants learn that actions produce specific outcomes. Schedule manipulations measure goal-directed vs. habitual learning. | Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary?. Psychological Review, 57(4), 193-216. | |
| Language Aptitude | Battery-style tasks estimating a learner’s capacity to acquire a new language. Participants are taught the vocabulary and grammar of an artificial or unfamiliar language in a short session, then tested via translation, rule application, or production. Standard instrument: Carroll & Sapon’s Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT). | ||
| Latent Inhibition | Pre-exposure to a stimulus without consequences retards subsequent conditioning to that stimulus. Measures learned irrelevance. | Lubow, R. E., & Moore, A. U. (1959). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced pre-exposure to the conditional stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52(4), 415-419. | |
| Matrix Reasoning (Raven's Progressive Matrices) | Participants view a matrix (typically 3x3) of abstract patterns with one cell missing, and select the option from a set of alternatives that completes the matrix according to the implicit rule. Accuracy is used as an index of non-verbal analytic reasoning and fluid intelligence. | Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97(3), 404-431. | jP |
| Novel Word Learning | Participants are exposed to unfamiliar word forms (often paired with referents, pictures, or definitions) and are later tested on recognition, recall, or lexical integration of those items, typically after a delay including sleep. Accuracy and interference effects with existing lexical neighbours index the formation and consolidation of new lexical representations. | Gaskell, M., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89(2), 105-132. | |
| Probabilistic Learning (Two-Armed Bandit) | Choose between options with different reward probabilities. Modeled with reinforcement learning. | Knowlton, B. J., Squire, L. R., & Gluck, M. A. (1994). Probabilistic classification learning in amnesia. Learning & Memory, 1(2), 106-120. | Pv · jP |
| Pursuit Rotor Task | Participants attempt to keep a hand-held stylus (or a cursor under mouse/finger control) in continuous contact with a small target that moves along a circular path on a rotating turntable. Time-on-target across trials and sessions indexes visuomotor tracking ability and procedural motor skill learning. | Ammons, R. B. (1947). Acquisition of motor skill: II. Rotary pursuit performance with continuous practice before and after a single rest. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(5), 393-411. | |
| Retrieval Practice / Testing Effect | After an initial study phase, participants restudy some items and attempt to recall others, then take a delayed final test on all material. Better retention for tested items than for restudied items demonstrates the testing effect and is used to quantify how active retrieval strengthens long-term memory. | Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-Enhanced Learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. | |
| Reversal Learning | After learning a stimulus–reward association, contingencies reverse. Measures flexibility in reward learning. | Cools, R., Clark, L., Owen, A. M., & Robbins, T. W. (2002). Defining the neural mechanisms of probabilistic reversal learning using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 22(11), 4563-4567. | Pv · jP |
| Risk-Sensitive Learning Task | Reinforcement-learning variant where one option delivers a fixed payoff and the other a variance-matched gamble with the same expected value. Probes how learning history shapes risk preferences and asymmetric value updating. | jP | |
| Sensory Preconditioning | Two neutral stimuli are paired; one is then conditioned. Testing the other reveals indirect associative transfer. | Brogden, W. J. (1939). Sensory pre-conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(4), 323-332. | |
| Serial Reaction Time (SRT) | Respond to stimuli in a repeating spatial sequence. RT speedup indexes implicit sequence learning. | Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 1-32. | Pv |
| Sign-Tracking vs. Goal-Tracking | After Pavlovian conditioning, some subjects approach the predictive cue (sign) while others approach the reward location (goal). | Robinson, T. E., & Flagel, S. B. (2009). Dissociating the Predictive and Incentive Motivational Properties of Reward-Related Cues Through the Study of Individual Differences. Biological Psychiatry, 65(10), 869-873. | |
| Statistical Learning | Exposure to streams with embedded regularities. Sensitivity to transitional probabilities measures implicit learning. | Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (1996). Word Segmentation: The Role of Distributional Cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 606-621. | |
| Trace Conditioning | CS offset precedes US onset by a temporal gap. Requires hippocampal-dependent bridging of the CS–US gap. | Clark, R. E., & Zola, S. (1998). Trace eyeblink classical conditioning in the monkey: A nonsurgical method and behavioral analysis. Behavioral Neuroscience, 112(5), 1062-1068. | |
| Two-Step Task (Markov Decision Task) | Two-stage choice with probabilistic state transitions and drifting reward probabilities. Dissociates model-based from model-free reinforcement learning via stay/switch patterns after rare vs. common transitions. | jP | |
| Value-Modulated Attentional Capture (VMAC) | During training, participants learn that certain colour singletons predict high vs. low monetary reward; in a subsequent test, these now task-irrelevant colours appear as distractors in a visual search display where reward is no longer at stake. Slower responses and increased eye-movements to high-value distractors index how learned value captures attention independently of goals and physical salience. | Le Pelley, M. E., Pearson, D., Griffiths, O., & Beesley, T. (2015). When goals conflict with values: Counterproductive attentional and oculomotor capture by reward-related stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 158-171. | |
| Visuomotor Rotation Adaptation | Cursor feedback is rotated relative to hand movement; participants gradually adapt. Measures sensorimotor error-based learning. | Krakauer, J. W., Pine, Z. M., Ghilardi, M. F., & Ghez, C. (2000). Learning of Visuomotor Transformations for Vectorial Planning of Reaching Trajectories. The Journal of Neuroscience, 20(23), 8916-8924. | |
| Weather Prediction Task | Predict outcomes from probabilistic cue combinations. Dissociates declarative from procedural learning. | Knowlton, B. J., Squire, L. R., & Gluck, M. A. (1994). Probabilistic classification learning in amnesia. Learning & Memory, 1(2), 106-120. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affective Go/No-Go | Respond to one emotional category, withhold to another. Measures emotion–inhibition interaction. | Murphy, F. C., Sahakian, B. J., Rubinsztein, J. S., Michael, A., Rogers, R. D., Robbins, T. W., & Paykel, E. S. (1999). Emotional bias and inhibitory control processes in mania and depression. Psychological Medicine, 29(6), 1307-1321. | |
| Affective Priming | Emotional prime facilitates/inhibits evaluation of a subsequent target. Measures automatic affective processing. | Fazio, R. H. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition & Emotion, 15(2), 115-141. | |
| Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT) | Push/pull a joystick in response to emotional stimuli. Congruence effects reveal automatic approach/avoidance tendencies. | Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2007). Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38(2), 105-120. | PT |
| Dot Probe (Attentional Bias) | Probe replaces one of two stimuli (emotional/neutral). Faster detection at emotional location = attentional bias. | MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(1), 15-20. | PT |
| Emotion Recognition (Ekman Faces) | Label facial expressions of the six basic emotions. Measures facial emotion recognition accuracy. | Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 124-129. | Pv |
| Emotion Regulation Task | Reappraise, suppress, or attend to emotional images. Indexes regulation strategy effectiveness. | Ochsner, K. N., Ray, R. D., Cooper, J. C., Robertson, E. R., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D., & Gross, J. J. (2004). For better or for worse: neural systems supporting the cognitive down- and up-regulation of negative emotion. NeuroImage, 23(2), 483-499. | |
| Emotional Faces Dot Probe | Dot-probe variant using emotional faces. Widely used in anxiety and depression research for attentional bias to threat. | Mogg, K., Philippot, P., & Bradley, B. P. (2004). Selective Attention to Angry Faces in Clinical Social Phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(1), 160-165. | |
| Emotional Flanker | Emotional distractors flank a central target. Measures involuntary attentional capture by emotional stimuli. | Fenske, M. J., & Eastwood, J. D. (2003). Modulation of Focused Attention by Faces Expressing Emotion: Evidence From Flanker Tasks. Emotion, 3(4), 327-343. | |
| Emotional Stroop | Name ink color of emotionally valenced words. Slowed naming for emotional words indexes attentional capture. | Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 120(1), 3-24. | |
| Facial Action Coding System (FACS) Paradigm | Systematically code facial muscle movements (Action Units) to measure spontaneous emotional expression. | Pv | |
| Fear-Potentiated Startle | Startle probe during a fear-conditioned stimulus produces enhanced eyeblink. Measures conditioned fear physiologically. | Davis, M. (1986). Pharmacological and anatomical analysis of fear conditioning using the fear-potentiated startle paradigm. Behavioral Neuroscience, 100(6), 814-824. | |
| IAPS Viewing | View standardized emotional images while physiological/neural responses are measured. | Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1998). Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. Biological Psychiatry, 44(12), 1248-1263. | |
| Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) Task | Cue signals potential monetary gain or loss; participant must respond fast enough to a target to win/avoid the outcome. Dissociates reward anticipation from receipt; widely used in fMRI reward research. | ||
| Mood Induction Procedures | Film clips, music, or recall used to induce transient mood states as experimental variables. | Velten, E. (1968). A laboratory task for induction of mood states. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 6(4), 473-482. | |
| Startle Reflex Modulation | Eyeblink startle to sudden noise during emotional images — potentiated during negative, attenuated during positive. | Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex. Psychological Review, 97(3), 377-395. | |
| Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) | Public speaking + mental arithmetic before evaluators. Gold-standard lab stress induction producing cortisol responses. | Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K.-M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The 'Trier Social Stress Test' - A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28(1-2), 76-81. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alternate Uses Task (AUT) | Generate as many unusual uses for a common object (e.g., brick) as possible. Scores fluency, flexibility, and originality. | Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3-14. | |
| Compound Remote Associates (CRA) | Given three compound-word stems, find the word that completes all three. Modernized RAT variant. | Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 634-639. | |
| Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) | Experts independently rate creative products (stories, collages, poems). Measures real-world creative output. | Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013. | |
| Insight Problems (Matchstick, Nine-Dot) | Solve problems requiring restructuring of the initial representation. Measures insight vs. analytic problem solving. | Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 238-246. | |
| Remote Associates Test (RAT) | Given three words (e.g., "falling, actor, dust"), find a fourth linking them all ("star"). Measures convergent creative thinking. | Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220-232. | |
| Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) | Battery of verbal and figural tasks yielding fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration scores. | Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Prentice-Hall, Inc. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ease of Learning (EOL) | Before study, judge how easy each item will be to learn. Measures pre-study metacognitive prediction. | Underwood, B. J. (1966). Individual and group predictions of item difficulty for free learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 673-679. | |
| Feeling of Knowing (FOK) | After failing to recall, judge the likelihood of recognizing the item later. Prospective metacognitive judgment. | Hart, J. T. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(4), 208-216. | |
| Judgment of Learning (JOL) | After studying each item, predict the likelihood of recalling it later. Accuracy measures metacognitive monitoring. | Arbuckle, T. Y., & Cuddy, L. L. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 126-131. | |
| Perceptual Confidence / Meta-d' | After perceptual discrimination, rate confidence. Meta-d' quantifies metacognitive sensitivity independently of task performance. | Maniscalco, B., & Lau, H. (2012). A signal detection theoretic approach for estimating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 422-430. | |
| Retrospective Confidence Judgment (RCJ) | Rate confidence in the correctness of a just-given response. Calibration and resolution metrics measure metacognitive accuracy. | Henmon, V. A. C. (1911). The relation of the time of a judgment to its accuracy. Psychological Review, 18(3), 186-201. | |
| Tip-of-the-Tongue (TOT) Paradigm | Retrieve answers to general knowledge questions; report TOT states. Measures retrieval failure awareness. | Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966). The "tip of the tongue" phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), 325-337. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finger Tapping Task | Tap a key as fast as possible (or at a specified rate). Measures motor speed, rhythm, and lateralization. | Collyer, C. E., Broadbent, H. A., & Church, R. M. (1994). Preferred rates of repetitive tapping and categorical time production. Perception & Psychophysics, 55(4), 443-453. | Pv |
| Fitts's Law Pointing | Move to targets of varying distance and width. Movement time scales logarithmically with index of difficulty. | Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(6), 381-391. | PT |
| Force-Field Adaptation | A robotic arm applies velocity-dependent forces during reaching; participants learn to compensate. Measures internal model formation. | Shadmehr, R., & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. (1994). Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. The Journal of Neuroscience, 14(5), 3208-3224. | |
| Grip Force Task | Lift an object and maintain stable grip; perturbations reveal predictive and reactive force control. | Johansson, R. S., & Westling, G. (1984). Roles of glabrous skin receptors and sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when lifting rougher or more slippery objects. Experimental Brain Research, 56(3), 550-564. | |
| Mirror Tracing | Trace a shape while viewing only a mirror reflection. Measures visuomotor adaptation and procedural learning. | Starch, D. (1910). A demonstration of the trial and error method of learning. Psychological Bulletin, 7(1), 20-23. | |
| Purdue Pegboard | Place pegs into holes as quickly as possible with each hand and both together. Measures fine manual dexterity. | Tiffin, J., & Asher, E. J. (1948). The Purdue Pegboard: norms and studies of reliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 234-247. | |
| Pursuit Rotor Task | Participants attempt to keep a hand-held stylus (or a cursor under mouse/finger control) in continuous contact with a small target that moves along a circular path on a rotating turntable. Time-on-target across trials and sessions indexes visuomotor tracking ability and procedural motor skill learning. | Ammons, R. B. (1947). Acquisition of motor skill: II. Rotary pursuit performance with continuous practice before and after a single rest. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(5), 393-411. | |
| Visuomotor Rotation Task | Cursor feedback is rotated relative to hand movement; participants adapt reaching over trials. Measures sensorimotor adaptation. | Krakauer, J. W. (2009). Motor Learning and Consolidation: The Case of Visuomotor Rotation. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 405-421. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Approximate Number System (ANS) Task | Judge which of two dot arrays is more numerous (non-symbolic). Ratio-dependent accuracy indexes ANS precision. | Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455(7213), 665-668. | |
| Give-N Task | Experimenter asks the child to place exactly N objects (e.g., 'Give me three fish') in a container, varying N across trials. Canonical assessment of early-childhood number-word knowledge; performance classifies children as 'one-knowers', 'two-knowers', 'three-knowers', 'four-knowers', or 'cardinal-principle knowers'. | Wynn, K. (1992). Children's acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 220-251. | |
| Number Comparison (Symbolic) | Judge which of two Arabic digits is larger. Distance effect reveals analogue magnitude representation. | Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for Judgements of Numerical Inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519-1520. | |
| Number Line Estimation | Place a number on a physical line anchored at 0 and 100/1000. Shift from logarithmic to linear mapping tracks development. | Siegler, R. S., & Opfer, J. E. (2003). The Development of Numerical Estimation. Psychological Science, 14(3), 237-250. | |
| SNARC Task | Classify numbers while responding left/right. Faster left responses to small numbers reveals spatial–numerical mapping. | Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371-396. | PT · Pv |
| Subitizing | Enumerate briefly flashed dot arrays. Fast and accurate for 1–4 items (subitizing range), slower beyond. | Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W., & Volkmann, J. (1949). The Discrimination of Visual Number. The American Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 498. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-not-B Error Task | Infant searches at location A after repeated finds there, even after watching the toy moved to B. Measures object permanence. | Diamond, A. (1985). Development of the ability to use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants' performance on AB. Child Development, 56(4), 868-883. | |
| Accent Perception | Listeners hear speech in different regional, social, or non-native accents and rate or categorize the speakers along social-evaluative dimensions (e.g. friendliness, intelligence, geographic origin) or make perceptual judgements (intelligibility, dialect identification). Developmental version (Kinzler line) tracks the emergence of accent-based social preferences in children. | Kinzler, K. D., & DeJesus, J. M. (2013). Northern = smart and Southern = nice: The development of accent attitudes in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(6), 1146-1158. | |
| Causal Attribution (Blicket Detector) | Child observes which objects activate a novel machine (the 'blicket detector') and infers which objects have the hidden causal property. Used to study early causal-mechanism learning, screening-off, and Bayesian causal-graph reasoning in preschoolers. Generalizes to a broad family of multi-agent / multi-cue causal-responsibility judgements. | Gopnik, A., & Sobel, D. M. (2000). Detecting blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71(5), 1205-1222. | |
| Conservation Task | Transform the appearance of a quantity (e.g., pour water into a taller glass) and ask if the amount changed. Piagetian concrete operations. | Piaget, J. (2013). Child's Conception of Number. Routledge. | |
| Counterfactual Reasoning | Participant is told a story and asked 'what if X had happened instead?' (counterfactual) or 'what if X happens next time?' (future hypothetical). Measures the ability to represent multiple alternative possibilities, a developmental milestone emerging between ages 3 and 6. | Beck, S. R., Robinson, E. J., Carroll, D. J., & Apperly, I. A. (2006). Children's thinking about counterfactuals and future hypotheticals as possibilities. Child Development, 77(2), 413-426. | |
| Distributive Justice / Resource Allocation | Participant decides how to distribute resources (stickers, coins, snacks) among recipients who differ on dimensions such as need, merit, group membership, or prior generosity. Used to study the development of cooperation, fairness, in-group bias, and reciprocity from preschool age onward. | Olson, K. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2008). Foundations of cooperation in young children. Cognition, 108(1), 222-231. | |
| Give-N Task | Experimenter asks the child to place exactly N objects (e.g., 'Give me three fish') in a container, varying N across trials. Canonical assessment of early-childhood number-word knowledge; performance classifies children as 'one-knowers', 'two-knowers', 'three-knowers', 'four-knowers', or 'cardinal-principle knowers'. | Wynn, K. (1992). Children's acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 220-251. | |
| Head-Turn Preference Procedure (HPP) | Infant is seated between two side lights and audio speakers. A flashing light attracts the infant's gaze toward a speaker; a sustained auditory stimulus then plays from that side and continues until the infant looks away. Looking time toward each side serves as an index of relative interest in the two auditory stimulus types. Standard methodology for testing infant speech perception, word segmentation, and phonotactic learning. | Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Mandel, D. R., Myers, J., Turk, A., & Gerken, L. (1995). The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception. Infant Behavior and Development, 18(1), 111-116. | |
| Looking-While-Listening | Infant or child views two pictures on a screen while hearing a spoken sentence labelling one of them; eye movements to the target picture are tracked over time. Developmental adaptation of the visual world paradigm, used to measure speed and accuracy of spoken-word recognition in young children. Standard in infant psycholinguistics; underpins the Peekbank repository of looking-while-listening datasets. | Fernald, A., Pinto, J. P., Swingley, D., Weinberg, A., & McRoberts, G. W. (1998). Rapid gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the 2nd year. Psychological Science, 9(3), 228-231. | |
| Marshmallow Test (Delay of Gratification) | Child chooses one marshmallow now or waits for two. Measures self-control and delay of gratification in preschoolers. | Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 687-696. | |
| Pedagogical Sampling | Child is shown how a novel toy works by either (a) a pedagogical demonstrator who frames the action as deliberate instruction or (b) a non-pedagogical demonstrator. Children's subsequent exploration is measured: pedagogical demonstration narrows exploration to the demonstrated function, whereas non-pedagogical demonstration leaves exploration broad. Used to study how children infer the informativeness of evidence under pedagogical assumptions. | Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120(3), 322-330. | |
| Picture Sequence Memory | Remember and reproduce the order of a sequence of activity pictures. NIH Toolbox episodic memory measure for all ages. | Dikmen, S. S., Bauer, P. J., Weintraub, S., Mungas, D., Slotkin, J., Beaumont, J. L., Gershon, R., Temkin, N. R., & Heaton, R. K. (2014). Measuring episodic memory across the lifespan: NIH Toolbox Picture Sequence Memory Test. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 20(6), 611-619. | |
| Preferential Looking | Present two stimuli side by side; differential looking time reveals visual preference or discrimination in pre-verbal infants. | Fantz, R. L. (1961). A method for studying depth perception in infants under six months of age. The Psychological Record, 11(1), 27-32. | |
| Pronoun Resolution (Binding Principles) | Participant hears a sentence containing a pronoun or reflexive (e.g. 'Mama Bear is washing her' vs 'Mama Bear is washing herself') and judges its truth against a picture. Tests knowledge of the syntactic binding principles (Principle A for reflexives, Principle B for pronouns) and their pragmatic counterparts. Canonical developmental probe of the Delay of Principle B Effect. | Chien, Y.-C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1(3), 225-295. | |
| Selective Trust | Two informants label or describe novel objects: one is consistently accurate or knowledgeable, the other inaccurate or ignorant. Children are then asked which informant to learn from, ask, or endorse. Measures the developmental emergence of epistemic vigilance and trust calibration to informant reliability. | Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76(6), 1261-1277. | |
| Violation of Expectation (VoE) | Infants look longer at "impossible" events (e.g., object through solid barrier). Looking time indexes early physical knowledge. | Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S., & Wasserman, S. (1985). Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition, 20(3), 191-208. |
| Task | Description | Key Reference | Implementations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock Drawing Test | Draw a clock face showing a specified time. Screens for visuospatial, executive, and semantic deficits. | Shulman, K. I., Shedletsky, R., & Silver, I. L. (1986). The challenge of time: Clock-drawing and cognitive function in the elderly. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 1(2), 135-140. | |
| Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) | 30-point screening covering orientation, registration, attention, recall, and language. Global cognitive screening tool. | Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189-198. | |
| Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) | Brief screening for mild cognitive impairment across visuospatial, executive, memory, attention, language, and orientation. | Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., Cummings, J. L., & Chertkow, H. (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695-699. | |
| Repeatable Battery for Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) | Brief battery spanning immediate memory, visuospatial, language, attention, and delayed memory. | Randolph, C., Tierney, M. C., Mohr, E., & Chase, T. N. (1998). The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): Preliminary Clinical Validity. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20(3), 310-319. | |
| Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) | Match symbols to digits using a key as quickly as possible. Measures processing speed and incidental learning. | PT · jP |
Several tasks span multiple domains:
- Stroop Task — Attention + Executive Function (inhibition)
- Go/No-Go & Stop-Signal — Executive Function + Emotion (affective variants)
- Change Detection — Perception + Memory (visual working memory)
- WCST — Executive Function + Learning (rule learning from feedback)
- Dot Probe — Attention + Emotion (attentional bias)
- N-back — Memory + Executive Function (updating)
- IAT — Social Cognition + Attention (automatic associations)
- Reading Span — Memory + Language (verbal working memory)
- Visuomotor Rotation — Motor Control + Learning (sensorimotor adaptation)
- PIT / Outcome Devaluation — Decision Making + Learning (goal-directed vs. habitual)
- Trolley/Footbridge Dilemmas — Decision Making + Emotion (moral cognition)
- Mirror Tracing — Motor Control + Learning (procedural memory)
- SART — Attention + Executive Function (sustained attention / inhibition)
- Delay of Gratification — Developmental + Decision Making (self-regulation)
- Number Line Estimation — Numerical Cognition + Developmental (magnitude representation)
Contributions are welcome! Please read the contributing guidelines first.
If you know of a task, platform, or repository that should be listed here, please open an issue or submit a pull request.
This project was developed at NCCR Evolving Language, a National Centre of Competence in Research funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
