@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/02_Cross-Domain_Foundation/research-literacy/references/planning-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+# Research Planning Template
+
+Use this template before beginning any analysis. Fill in each section completely. Present the completed plan to the user and wait for confirmation before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Research Plan
+
+### 1. Research Question
+
+**Question**: [State the specific, testable research question in one sentence]
+
+**Type**: [ ] Confirmatory (pre-specified hypothesis) / [ ] Exploratory (hypothesis-generating)
+
+**PICOS Breakdown**:
+- **Population**: [Who is being studied? Demographics, clinical status, inclusion/exclusion criteria]
+- **Intervention/Exposure**: [What manipulation, variable, or condition is of interest?]
+- **Comparison**: [What is the control or reference condition?]
+- **Outcome**: [What is being measured? How is it operationalized?]
+- **Study Design**: [Within-subjects, between-subjects, mixed, longitudinal, cross-sectional, etc.]
+
+---
+
+### 2. Hypotheses
+
+**H1 (Primary hypothesis)**: [Specific, directional or non-directional prediction]
+
+**H0 (Null hypothesis)**: [What would be true if H1 is wrong — typically no effect or no difference]
+
+**Alternative explanations to rule out**: [List confounds, alternative mechanisms, or third-variable explanations that could produce the same pattern of results]
+
+**Expected effect size**: [Based on prior literature or smallest effect of interest. Cite the source.] (Cohen, 1992; or domain-specific meta-analysis)
+
+---
+
+### 3. Method Selection
+
+**Chosen method**: [Name the specific analysis — e.g., "2x3 mixed-effects ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction"]
+
+**Why this method**:
+- [Explain why this method matches the research question]
+- [Explain why it is appropriate for the data type and design]
+
+**Alternatives considered**:
+| Alternative Method | Reason for Rejection |
+|---|---|
+| [e.g., Paired t-test] | [e.g., Design has more than two conditions] |
+| [e.g., Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis] | [e.g., Data are approximately normal with sufficient N] |
+| [e.g., Bayesian mixed model] | [e.g., Frequentist approach is standard in the field and sufficient for the question] |
+
+---
+
+### 4. Expected Outcomes
+
+**If H1 is supported**: [Describe the specific pattern — e.g., "A significant main effect of condition, F > critical value, p < .05, with a medium effect size (partial eta-squared > .06). Post-hoc comparisons would show that condition A > condition B > condition C."]
+
+**If H0 is supported**: [Describe — e.g., "No significant effects, p > .05. Bayesian analysis would show BF01 > 3, providing moderate evidence for the null."]
+
+**Ambiguous results would look like**: [Describe — e.g., "A marginally significant effect, p between .05 and .10, with a small effect size. Or a significant omnibus test but non-significant post-hoc comparisons."]
+
+**Smallest effect of interest (SESOI)**: [State the minimum effect size that would be theoretically or practically meaningful, with justification]
+
+---
+
+### 5. Assumptions
+
+| Assumption | How It Will Be Checked | Plan If Violated |
+|---|---|---|
+| [e.g., Normality of residuals] | [e.g., Shapiro-Wilk test, Q-Q plot] | [e.g., Use Welch's ANOVA or permutation test] |
+| [e.g., Homogeneity of variance] | [e.g., Levene's test] | [e.g., Use Welch's correction] |
+| [e.g., Sphericity (repeated measures)] | [e.g., Mauchly's test] | [e.g., Apply Greenhouse-Geisser correction] |
+| [e.g., Independence of observations] | [e.g., Design review — are there nested factors?] | [e.g., Use mixed-effects model with appropriate random effects] |
+| [e.g., No multicollinearity (regression)] | [e.g., VIF < 5] | [e.g., Remove or combine correlated predictors] |
+
+---
+
+### 6. Limitations
+
+**Design limitations**:
+- [e.g., "Convenience sample of university students limits generalizability"]
+- [e.g., "Cross-sectional design cannot establish causation"]
+
+**Measurement limitations**:
+- [e.g., "Self-report measures are subject to demand characteristics"]
+- [e.g., "EEG has limited spatial resolution"]
+
+**Statistical limitations**:
+- [e.g., "Sample size provides 80% power to detect d = 0.5 but may miss smaller effects"]
+- [e.g., "Multiple comparisons across ROIs increase Type I error risk"]
+
+---
+
+### 7. Analysis Pipeline
+
+Describe each step in order. For each step, note whether it involves a researcher degree of freedom.
+
+| Step | Action | Researcher Degree of Freedom? | Justification |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | [e.g., Data import and quality check] | No | Standard preprocessing |
+| 2 | [e.g., Artifact rejection: threshold = 100 uV] | Yes — threshold choice | [Cite source: Luck, 2014] |
+| 3 | [e.g., Baseline correction: -200 to 0 ms] | Yes — window choice | [Cite source or convention] |
+| 4 | [e.g., Compute grand averages per condition] | No | Standard |
+| 5 | [e.g., Run ANOVA on mean amplitude in 300-500 ms window] | Yes — window choice | [Cite source for time window] |
+| 6 | [e.g., Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction] | Yes — correction method | [Justify choice over alternatives] |
+
+---
+
+### 8. Decision Points Requiring User Input
+
+List every point in the pipeline where the user must confirm before the agent proceeds.
+
+- [ ] **Exclusion criteria**: Approve participant/trial exclusion before removing data
+- [ ] **Assumption check results**: Review assumption test results and approve the chosen remedy (if any)
+- [ ] **Model specification**: Confirm the final model before fitting
+- [ ] **Multiple comparisons strategy**: Approve the correction method
+- [ ] **Unexpected patterns**: If results are unexpected, discuss before interpreting
+- [ ] **Post-hoc analyses**: Any exploration beyond the pre-specified plan must be approved and labeled
+
+---
+
+### 9. Preregistration Checklist (if confirmatory)
+
+- [ ] Hypotheses written before data access
+- [ ] Analysis plan specified before data access
+- [ ] Primary outcome variable defined
+- [ ] Sample size justified (power analysis or resource constraints documented)
+- [ ] Exclusion criteria defined
+- [ ] Correction for multiple comparisons specified
+- [ ] Plan registered on a public platform (e.g., OSF, AsPredicted)
+
+---
+
+## Post-Analysis Checklist
+
+After the analysis is complete, verify:
+
+- [ ] Results compared to expected outcomes from Section 4
+- [ ] All preregistered analyses reported (not just significant ones)
+- [ ] Any deviations from the plan are documented and labeled
+- [ ] Exploratory analyses are clearly separated from confirmatory analyses
+- [ ] Effect sizes and confidence intervals reported alongside p-values
+- [ ] Limitations from Section 6 revisited and updated if needed
+- [ ] Raw data and analysis scripts prepared for sharing (where possible)

package/skills/03_Cognitive_Psychology/alternative-uses-task-designer/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+---
+name: "alternative-uses-task-designer"
+description: "Domain-validated guidance for designing Alternative Uses Task (AUT) experiments measuring divergent thinking, with parameters for AI-augmented and traditional conditions"
+domain: "cognitive-psychology"
+version: "1.0.0"
+papers:
+ - "Lee & Chung, 2024"
+ - "Guilford, 1967"
+ - "Wallach & Kogan, 1965"
+ - "Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019"
+dependencies:
+ required:
+ - research-literacy
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+---
+
+# Alternative Uses Task Designer
+
+## Purpose
+
+This skill encodes expert methodological knowledge for designing Alternative Uses Task (AUT) experiments — the most widely used measure of divergent thinking in creativity research. It provides domain-specific parameter recommendations for stimulus selection, timing, condition design (including AI-augmented variants), online implementation, and quality control. A general-purpose programmer would not know the standard objects, timing constraints, scoring dimensions, or the critical design choices that determine whether an AUT experiment yields valid creativity data.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- Designing a study measuring divergent thinking or creative ideation
+- Setting up an AUT experiment with AI-assisted conditions (e.g., ChatGPT, web search)
+- Choosing appropriate objects, timing, and instructions for an AUT
+- Adapting the AUT for online administration (MTurk, Prolific, Qualtrics)
+- Planning attention checks and exclusion criteria for creativity studies
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:
+
+1. **State the research question** — What specific question is this AUT study addressing?
+2. **Justify the method choice** — Why AUT (not RAT, CAT, or other creativity tasks)? What alternatives were considered?
+3. **Declare expected outcomes** — What pattern of results would support vs. refute the hypothesis?
+4. **Note assumptions and limitations** — What does AUT assume about creativity? Where could it mislead?
+5. **Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation** before proceeding.
+
+For detailed methodology guidance, see the `research-literacy` skill.
+
+
+## ⚠️ Verification Notice
+
+This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please [open an issue](https://github.com/HaoxuanLiTHUAI/awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills/issues).
+
+## AUT Overview
+
+The Alternative Uses Task (Guilford, 1967) asks participants to generate as many unusual uses as possible for a common everyday object within a fixed time limit. It is the standard measure of **divergent thinking** — the ability to generate multiple, varied, and novel ideas.
+
+### Core Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Default | Source |
+|-----------|---------|--------|
+| Time limit | **5 minutes** per object | Lee & Chung, 2024; Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019 |
+| Number of objects | **1-3** per session | Silvia et al., 2008 |
+| Response format | Open-ended text, one use per line | Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019 |
+| Instructions emphasis | "unusual, creative, uncommon" uses | Guilford, 1967; Wallach & Kogan, 1965 |
+
+### Standard Objects
+
+Objects should be **concrete, familiar, and have many conventional uses** so that departing from typical uses requires genuine creative thinking.
+
+| Object | Commonly Used In | Source |
+|--------|-----------------|--------|
+| Brick | Most widely validated | Guilford, 1967 |
+| Paperclip | Classic Guilford item | Guilford, 1967 |
+| Newspaper | Used in Lee & Chung, 2024 | Lee & Chung, 2024 |
+| Cardboard box | Common alternative | Silvia et al., 2008 |
+| Tin can | Common alternative | Wallach & Kogan, 1965 |
+| Shoe | Frequently used | Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019 |
+
+> **Avoid**: Objects that are already unusual (e.g., "kaleidoscope") or that have very few conventional uses (e.g., "toothpick"). The task requires a clear baseline of common uses to depart from.
+
+## Condition Design
+
+### Standard Conditions (Creativity Research)
+
+```
+Is the study examining AI's impact on creativity?
+|
++-- YES --> Include at minimum:
+| 1. AI-assisted condition (e.g., ChatGPT access)
+| 2. No-assistance control
+| 3. [Recommended] Web search control (Lee & Chung, 2024, Exp 2A/2B)
+|
++-- NO --> Standard AUT with:
+ 1. Experimental manipulation (priming, mood, instructions)
+ 2. Control condition (neutral or baseline)
+```
+
+### AI-Augmented Design (Lee & Chung, 2024)
+
+For studying AI's impact on creativity:
+
+| Condition | Participant Instructions | Implementation |
+|-----------|------------------------|----------------|
+| **ChatGPT** | "You may use ChatGPT to assist you" | Embed ChatGPT in new browser tab; record interaction logs |
+| **Web Search** | "You may use web search to assist you" | Allow Google/Bing access; record search queries |
+| **No Assistance** | "Complete the task on your own" | Disable external tool access |
+
+**Critical design decisions**:
+
+- **Between-subjects** assignment to conditions (Lee & Chung, 2024) — avoids carryover effects
+- **Random assignment** via survey platform (Qualtrics randomizer)
+- **Cover story**: Frame as "idea generation study," not "creativity study" to reduce demand characteristics
+- **Manipulation check**: Ask participants whether they used the assigned tool
+
+## Online Implementation
+
+### Platform Specifications
+
+| Parameter | Recommendation | Source |
+|-----------|---------------|--------|
+| Platform | Qualtrics (survey) + MTurk/Prolific (recruitment) | Lee & Chung, 2024 |
+| Sample size per condition | **100-200** for between-subjects AUT | Lee & Chung, 2024 (N=256 in Exp 2B) |
+| Compensation | Prolific minimum + bonus for completion | Lee & Chung, 2024 |
+| Estimated duration | **15-25 minutes** total session | Lee & Chung, 2024 |
+
+### Attention and Quality Checks
+
+1. **Attention check questions** — Embed 1-2 instructed-response items (e.g., "Please select 'Strongly Agree' for this item") (Oppenheimer et al., 2009)
+2. **Seriousness check** — Post-task: "Did you take this study seriously?" (Lee & Chung, 2024)
+3. **Gibberish detection** — Flag responses that are incoherent or clearly auto-generated
+4. **Minimum response threshold** — Exclude participants with **<2 responses** (indicates disengagement)
+5. **Duplicate detection** — Check for repeated responses within a participant
+6. **Bot detection** — reCAPTCHA or honeypot fields; check completion time (exclude if <3 minutes)
+
+### Exclusion Criteria (Lee & Chung, 2024)
+
+- Failed attention check: **exclude**
+- Self-reported not taking study seriously: **exclude**
+- Completion time <3 minutes or >60 minutes: **flag for review**
+- Fewer than 2 responses on AUT: **exclude**
+- Non-native speakers (if language fluency is critical): **exclude or control for**
+
+## Additional Measures
+
+### Baseline Creativity
+
+| Measure | Items | Duration | What It Captures | Source |
+|---------|-------|----------|-----------------|--------|
+| **RAT** (Remote Associates Test) | **15 items** | ~5 min | Convergent thinking | Mednick, 1962; Lee & Chung, 2024 |
+| **Creative Achievement Questionnaire** | 10 domains | ~5 min | Real-world creative accomplishment | Carson et al., 2005 |
+| **Creative Self-Efficacy Scale** | 3 items, 5-point Likert | <1 min | Belief in own creative ability | Tierney & Farmer, 2002 |
+
+### Mediators / Moderators (Lee & Chung, 2024)
+
+- **Creative self-efficacy** — 3-item scale (Tierney & Farmer, 2002): "I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively," "I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas," "I have a knack for further developing the ideas of others." 5-point Likert (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree)
+- **Task engagement** — Self-report items on effort and involvement
+- **AI reliance** — Whether and how extensively participants used the AI tool
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+1. **Using "creative" in instructions without care**: Telling participants to "be creative" changes the scoring profile — it increases originality but may decrease fluency. Decide a priori and keep consistent across conditions (Nusbaum et al., 2014).
+
+2. **Confounding fluency with originality**: Participants who generate more ideas statistically have a higher chance of producing rare ideas. Either control for fluency when analyzing originality, or use ratio-based measures (Silvia et al., 2008).
+
+3. **Not controlling for AI-generated text**: In AI-augmented conditions, participants may copy-paste AI outputs. Record interaction logs and code whether responses are self-generated, AI-assisted, or directly copied (Lee & Chung, 2024).
+
+4. **Ignoring the web search control**: Comparing ChatGPT only to no-assistance confounds AI-specific effects with general information access effects. Include a web search condition as active control (Lee & Chung, 2024, Exp 2A/2B).
+
+5. **Insufficient sample size for between-subjects**: AUT effect sizes for condition differences are typically small-to-medium (d ≈ 0.3-0.5). Plan for N ≥ 100 per condition (Lee & Chung, 2024).
+
+6. **Administering multiple objects sequentially without counterbalancing**: Practice effects and fatigue can confound results. Counterbalance object order across participants (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019).
+
+## Minimum Reporting Checklist
+
+Based on Lee & Chung (2024) and Reiter-Palmon et al. (2019):
+
+- [ ] Object(s) used and rationale for selection
+- [ ] Time limit per object
+- [ ] Exact wording of instructions (verbatim or cited)
+- [ ] Condition descriptions and assignment method (random, counterbalanced)
+- [ ] Sample size per condition with power justification
+- [ ] Platform and recruitment source (MTurk, Prolific, lab)
+- [ ] Attention check and exclusion criteria with exclusion counts
+- [ ] For AI conditions: AI model and version, access method, interaction logging
+- [ ] Scoring method used (fluency, flexibility, originality, semantic distance) — see `divergent-thinking-scoring` skill
+- [ ] Inter-rater reliability for subjective scores (ICC or Cohen's kappa)
+- [ ] Pre-registration status and link
+
+## References
+
+- Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. *Creativity Research Journal*, 17(1), 37-50.
+- Guilford, J. P. (1967). *The nature of human intelligence*. McGraw-Hill.
+- Lee, B. C., & Chung, J. (2024). An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity. *Nature Human Behaviour*. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01953-1
+- Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. *Psychological Review*, 69(3), 220-232.
+- Nusbaum, E. C., Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2014). Ready, set, create: What instructing people to "be creative" reveals about the meaning and mechanisms of divergent thinking. *Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts*, 8(4), 423-432.
+- Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, 45(4), 867-872.
+- Reiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. *Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts*, 13(2), 144-152.
+- Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., et al. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. *Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts*, 2(2), 68-85.
+- Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. *Academy of Management Journal*, 45(6), 1137-1148.
+- Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). *Modes of thinking in young children*. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
+
+See `references/` for detailed instruction templates and object selection guide.

package/skills/03_Cognitive_Psychology/alternative-uses-task-designer/references/instruction-templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# AUT Instruction Templates
+
+## Standard AUT Instructions (Guilford, 1967; adapted by Lee & Chung, 2024)
+
+### No-Assistance Condition
+
+> In this task, you will be given the name of a common everyday object. Your job is to think of as many **unusual, creative, and uncommon** uses for this object as you can. Try to think of uses that most people would NOT think of.
+>
+> You have **5 minutes** to list as many uses as you can. Please enter one use per line.
+>
+> Remember: We are looking for **creative and unusual** uses, not typical everyday uses.
+>
+> The object is: **[OBJECT]**
+
+### ChatGPT-Assisted Condition (Lee & Chung, 2024)
+
+> In this task, you will be given the name of a common everyday object. Your job is to think of as many **unusual, creative, and uncommon** uses for this object as you can. Try to think of uses that most people would NOT think of.
+>
+> You may use **ChatGPT** to help you generate ideas. A ChatGPT window is available in a new tab. You can interact with it as much as you like during the task.
+>
+> You have **5 minutes** to list as many uses as you can. Please enter one use per line.
+>
+> The object is: **[OBJECT]**
+
+### Web Search Condition (Lee & Chung, 2024)
+
+> In this task, you will be given the name of a common everyday object. Your job is to think of as many **unusual, creative, and uncommon** uses for this object as you can. Try to think of uses that most people would NOT think of.
+>
+> You may use **web search** (Google, Bing, etc.) to help you find ideas. You can search as much as you like during the task.
+>
+> You have **5 minutes** to list as many uses as you can. Please enter one use per line.
+>
+> The object is: **[OBJECT]**
+
+## Object Selection Guide
+
+### Recommended Objects by Validation Status
+
+| Tier | Objects | Notes |
+|------|---------|-------|
+| **Tier 1** (most validated) | Brick, Paperclip, Newspaper | Used in hundreds of studies; largest normative datasets |
+| **Tier 2** (well validated) | Cardboard box, Tin can, Shoe, Towel | Common in published research; adequate norms |
+| **Tier 3** (less validated) | Fork, Pencil, Rubber band, Blanket | Used occasionally; limited normative data |
+
+### Selection Criteria
+
+1. **Familiarity**: All participants should know the object and its conventional uses
+2. **Affordance richness**: The object should have multiple physical properties (shape, material, size) that afford diverse uses
+3. **Cultural neutrality**: Avoid objects with strong cultural associations that differ across populations
+4. **Concrete**: Abstract or complex objects (e.g., "computer") generate qualitatively different responses
+
+### Number of Objects Per Session
+
+| Design | Recommendation | Rationale |
+|--------|---------------|-----------|
+| Single-object | 1 object, 5 min | Simplest; most common in online studies |
+| Multi-object | 2-3 objects, 5 min each | Better reliability; controls for object-specific effects |
+| Brief screening | 1 object, 2-3 min | For studies where AUT is a secondary measure |
+
+> **Note**: If using multiple objects, counterbalance presentation order across participants using a Latin square design (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019).

package/skills/03_Cognitive_Psychology/cognitive-paradigm-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,246 @@
+---
+name: "cognitive-paradigm-design"
+description: "Expert guidance for selecting and parameterizing cognitive psychology experimental paradigms based on research questions"
+domain: "cognitive-experimental-methods"
+version: "1.0.0"
+papers:
+ - "Goldstein, 2019, Cognitive Psychology (5th ed.)"
+ - "Morling, 2021, Research Methods in Psychology (4th ed.)"
+ - "Luck, 2014, An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique (2nd ed.)"
+ - "Macmillan & Creelman, 2005, Detection Theory (2nd ed.)"
+dependencies:
+ required:
+ - research-literacy
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+---
+
+# Cognitive Paradigm Design Skill
+
+This skill helps researchers select appropriate experimental paradigms for cognitive psychology research questions, configure their parameters with cited defaults, and design proper controls. It encodes methodological knowledge from the cognitive experimental literature that a non-specialist would not know.
+
+For detailed paradigm parameters, see `references/classic-paradigms.md`.
+For design methodology, see `references/design-principles.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:
+
+1. **State the research question** — What specific cognitive process or phenomenon is being investigated?
+2. **Justify the method choice** — Why an experimental paradigm (not survey, corpus, modeling)? What alternatives were considered?
+3. **Declare expected outcomes** — What pattern of results would support vs. refute the hypothesis?
+4. **Note assumptions and limitations** — What does this paradigm assume? Where could it mislead?
+5. **Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation** before proceeding.
+
+For detailed methodology guidance, see the `research-literacy` skill.
+
+
+## ⚠️ Verification Notice
+
+This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please [open an issue](https://github.com/HaoxuanLiTHUAI/awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills/issues).
+
+## Core Workflow
+
+When given a research question, follow this sequence:
+
+### Step 1: Identify the Cognitive Construct
+
+Map the research question to one or more core cognitive domains:
+
+| Domain | Core Constructs | Example Research Questions |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Attention** | Selective attention, spatial orienting, temporal attention, attentional capture | "Does emotion capture attention automatically?" |
+| **Memory** | Encoding, retrieval, WM capacity, false memory, recognition vs. recall | "Do older adults show increased false memory?" |
+| **Decision Making** | Risk, reward learning, impulsivity, perceptual decisions | "Are substance users more impulsive in intertemporal choice?" |
+| **Perception** | Thresholds, masking, awareness, object recognition | "What is the contrast threshold for face detection?" |
+| **Language** | Lexical access, sentence parsing, semantic processing | "Does syntactic complexity slow reading at the verb?" |
+| **Executive Function** | Inhibition, task switching, updating, cognitive flexibility | "Is SSRT longer in ADHD children?" |
+
+### Step 2: Select a Paradigm
+
+Use this decision tree to narrow paradigm choices:
+
+**Attention:**
+- Conflict/interference between dimensions -> **Stroop task** or **Flanker task**
+ - If response-level conflict is key -> **Flanker** (separates search from conflict)
+ - If word-reading automaticity is key -> **Stroop**
+- Spatial orienting -> **Posner cueing**
+ - Exogenous (reflexive) vs. endogenous (voluntary) -> vary cue type and SOA
+- Search efficiency / feature binding -> **Visual search**
+- Temporal limits of attention -> **Attentional blink**
+
+**Memory:**
+- STM scanning speed -> **Sternberg task**
+- False memory production -> **DRM paradigm**
+- Recollection vs. familiarity -> **Remember-Know**
+- VWM capacity -> **Change detection**
+- Serial position effects -> **Serial position curve**
+
+**Decision Making:**
+- Decision making under ambiguity with learning -> **Iowa Gambling Task**
+- Impulsivity / temporal discounting -> **Delay discounting**
+- Sensitivity vs. bias decomposition -> **Signal Detection Theory** (Yes/No or 2AFC)
+- Perceptual/cognitive discrimination -> **2AFC**
+
+**Perception:**
+- Threshold estimation -> **Psychophysical staircase** (1-up/2-down or QUEST)
+ - Few trials available -> **QUEST** (converges in ~30-50 trials; Watson & Pelli, 1983)
+ - Simple implementation needed -> **1-up/2-down** (converges in ~50-80 trials; Levitt, 1971)
+- Subliminal processing / visibility control -> **Masking paradigms**
+ - Vary visibility continuously -> **backward masking** (SOA manipulation)
+ - Prevent conscious identification -> **sandwich masking** (forward + backward)
+
+**Language:**
+- Single-word recognition / lexical access -> **Lexical decision**
+- Spreading activation / semantic networks -> **Priming** (with lexical decision or naming)
+- Incremental sentence comprehension -> **Self-paced reading** or **eye-tracking**
+ - Budget-friendly, no specialized equipment -> **Self-paced reading**
+ - Maximum ecological validity and rich temporal data -> **Eye-tracking**
+
+**Executive Function:**
+- Simple response inhibition (withholding) -> **Go/No-Go**
+- Action cancellation (stopping initiated response) -> **Stop-signal task**
+ - Need a latent measure of inhibition speed -> **Stop-signal** (yields SSRT)
+- Cognitive flexibility / set shifting -> **Task switching**
+- Working memory updating under continuous load -> **N-back**
+
+### Step 3: Configure Parameters
+
+For each selected paradigm, consult `references/classic-paradigms.md` for the full parameter reference. Apply these general rules:
+
+#### Timing Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Default | Adjustment Rule |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Stimulus duration** | Until response (RT tasks) or 100-500 ms (brief presentation) | Shorten for masking or iconic memory studies; lengthen for patient populations |
+| **ISI / ITI** | 1000-2000 ms | Increase to 2000-3000 ms for EEG (to separate ERPs); increase for fMRI (jittered 2-8 s for HRF deconvolution) |
+| **SOA** | Paradigm-specific (see reference) | Short SOA (<300 ms): automatic processes; Long SOA (>500 ms): strategic/controlled processes (Neely, 1977) |
+| **Response deadline** | 1500-2000 ms for RT tasks | Tighten for speed-emphasis; loosen for accuracy-emphasis or elderly/clinical samples |
+
+#### Trial Counts
+
+| Scenario | Minimum Trials per Condition | Rationale |
+|---|---|---|
+| Large effect (d > 0.8) | **40-60** | Stroop, Flanker, AB (Hedge et al., 2018) |
+| Medium effect (d ~ 0.5) | **60-100** | Priming, switching, search slopes (McNamara, 2005; Monsell, 2003) |
+| Small effect (d ~ 0.3) | **100-200** | Subtle manipulations, individual differences (Baker et al., 2021) |
+| SDT measures (d', c) | **100+ total** (50+ signal, 50+ noise) | Macmillan & Creelman (2005) |
+| Reliability-critical (SSRT, K) | **160-200 total** | Verbruggen et al. (2019); Rouder et al. (2011) |
+
+#### Proportion Manipulations
+
+- **Congruency proportion** (Stroop, Flanker): **50/50** is the unbiased standard. Deviating introduces list-wide proportion congruency effects that modulate conflict (Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979; Bugg & Crump, 2012). Only deviate if proportion effects are the research question.
+- **Cue validity** (Posner): **80% valid** for endogenous orienting (Posner, 1980); **50%** (uninformative) for pure exogenous effects.
+- **Stop-signal proportion**: **25%** is standard. Higher rates induce proactive slowing (Verbruggen et al., 2019).
+- **Target prevalence** (search, detection): **50%** unless studying prevalence effects (Wolfe et al., 2005).
+- **Relatedness proportion** (priming): Keep at **~25-50%** to minimize strategic expectancy; lower RP isolates automatic priming (Neely et al., 1989).
+
+### Step 4: Design Controls
+
+Apply these control procedures:
+
+#### 4.1 Condition Assignment
+
+- **Within-subjects preferred** for most cognitive paradigms (maximizes power by eliminating between-subject variance; Maxwell & Delaney, 2004)
+- **Between-subjects required** when conditions produce carry-over (e.g., training studies, deception manipulations, proportion manipulations)
+- See `references/design-principles.md`, Section 1 for the full decision framework
+
+#### 4.2 Counterbalancing
+
+- **2-3 conditions**: Full counterbalancing (all k! orders)
+- **4+ conditions**: Balanced Latin Square (Williams, 1949); ensures each condition precedes every other condition equally often
+- **Always counterbalance**: Stimulus-response mappings, response hand assignments
+- **Pseudo-randomize within blocks**: No more than 3-4 consecutive same-condition trials; equal condition transitions (see `references/design-principles.md`, Section 5.4)
+
+#### 4.3 Practice Trials
+
+- **Simple RT tasks**: **10-20 practice trials** (Luce, 1986)
+- **Complex tasks** (task switching, N-back): **20-40 practice trials** with feedback
+- **Adaptive tasks** (staircase): **50-100 familiarization trials** before data collection (Watson & Pelli, 1983)
+- Require **>80% accuracy** in practice before advancing
+- Use **different stimuli** from experimental trials
+
+#### 4.4 Catch Trials and Comprehension Checks
+
+- **Detection tasks**: Include **10-20%** no-target catch trials (Posner, 1980)
+- **Reading tasks**: Comprehension probes after **30-50%** of sentences (Just et al., 1982)
+- **Masked priming**: Post-experiment visibility check or **5-10%** awareness probes (Forster & Davis, 1984)
+
+### Step 5: Specify Dependent Variables and Analysis
+
+#### Primary DVs by Paradigm Type
+
+| Paradigm Type | Primary DV | Analysis Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| Speeded RT tasks | **RT (ms)** + **accuracy (%)** | Always report both. Apply RT trimming: remove anticipatory (<200 ms) and slow (>2.5 SD or >2000 ms) responses. Analyze only correct trials for RT. |
+| Accuracy-focused tasks | **Proportion correct** or **d'** | Use SDT when signal/noise distinction applies (Macmillan & Creelman, 2005) |
+| Memory tasks | **Hit rate, false alarm rate, d', K** | Cowan's K for change detection; d' for recognition |
+| Adaptive threshold | **Threshold estimate** | Average last 6-8 reversals (staircase); maximum-likelihood estimate (QUEST) |
+| Learning/decision tasks | **Block-by-block performance** | IGT: (C+D)-(A+B) per block of 20; Delay discounting: indifference points per delay |
+
+#### Recommended Statistical Approaches
+
+- **Repeated-measures ANOVA**: Standard for factorial designs; check sphericity (Girden, 1992)
+- **Linear mixed-effects models**: Preferred for unbalanced designs, missing data, item-level analysis; include random intercepts for subjects and items ("by-subject and by-item" approach; Baayen et al., 2008)
+- **Bayesian analysis**: Report Bayes factors for key comparisons when sample size is limited or null effects are informative (Rouder et al., 2009)
+- **Drift-diffusion modeling**: For decomposing RT and accuracy into drift rate, boundary separation, and non-decision time (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008)
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference: Paradigm Selection Matrix
+
+| Research Question Type | First-Choice Paradigm | Alternative |
+|---|---|---|
+| Does X capture attention? | Posner cueing / Visual search | Dot-probe task |
+| Does X interfere with processing? | Stroop / Flanker | Simon task |
+| What is VWM capacity for X? | Change detection | Continuous report |
+| Does X cause false memories? | DRM paradigm | Misinformation paradigm |
+| Is recognition based on recollection or familiarity? | Remember-Know | ROC analysis |
+| Does X affect inhibitory control? | Stop-signal (SSRT) | Go/No-Go |
+| Does X modulate cognitive flexibility? | Task switching | Wisconsin Card Sorting |
+| Is X processed without awareness? | Backward masking + priming | Continuous flash suppression |
+| What is the perceptual threshold for X? | QUEST / Staircase + 2AFC | Method of constant stimuli |
+| Does X affect reading? | Self-paced reading / Eye-tracking | ERP (N400, P600) |
+| Does X prime Y? | Semantic priming + LDT | Cross-modal priming |
+| Is X related to impulsivity? | Delay discounting | Stop-signal |
+| Does X affect decision making under risk? | Iowa Gambling Task | Balloon Analogue Risk Task |
+| Does X affect WM updating? | N-back | Operation span |
+
+---
+
+## Domain-Specific Warnings
+
+These are non-obvious pitfalls that require domain expertise:
+
+1. **Stroop**: Using fewer than 4 color-response mappings introduces item-specific contingency learning that mimics Stroop effects but is not conflict-based (Schmidt & Besner, 2008). Always use >= 4 colors.
+
+2. **Stop-signal**: Never estimate SSRT from mean Go RT alone. The integration method accounts for the Go RT distribution shape. Failed-stop RTs must be faster than Go RTs (independence assumption check; Logan & Cowan, 1984). Use the consensus guide (Verbruggen et al., 2019).
+
+3. **Attentional blink**: T1 must be masked (by a trailing distractor). Removing the T1+1 item eliminates the AB entirely (Raymond et al., 1992). Always include T1+1 distractor.
+
+4. **Change detection (VWM)**: Retention intervals shorter than ~**900 ms** may allow iconic memory to contribute, inflating K estimates. Use >=**900 ms** retention interval, and consider articulatory suppression to prevent verbal recoding (Luck & Vogel, 1997; Vogel et al., 2001).
+
+5. **DRM**: False recall varies dramatically across lists (10-60%). Always report which word lists were used and their BAS values (Stadler et al., 1999). Roediger et al. (2001) normed 55 lists.
+
+6. **Iowa Gambling Task**: Apparent "learning" may reflect frequency-of-loss avoidance rather than long-term value sensitivity. Consider deck-by-deck analysis, not just (C+D)-(A+B) (Steingroever et al., 2013).
+
+7. **Priming**: High relatedness proportions (>50%) inflate priming through strategic expectancy, not automatic spreading activation. Use RP <= 25% to isolate automatic priming (Neely et al., 1989).
+
+8. **Task switching**: In alternating-runs designs (AABB), the response-stimulus interval (RSI) is confounded with cue-stimulus interval (CSI). Use cued-switching designs to separate preparation time from passive decay (Monsell, 2003; Meiran, 1996).
+
+9. **Psychophysical staircases**: Step sizes of <5% lead to staircases that fail to generate enough reversals. Use initial step sizes of at least **10-20%** of the expected threshold range, then halve after the first 2-4 reversals (Garcia-Perez, 1998).
+
+10. **N-back**: Omission errors are more informative than commission errors (unlike Go/No-Go). Always report d' rather than raw accuracy, as d' separates sensitivity from bias (Haatveit et al., 2010). Include lure trials (n-1 or n+1 matches) to assess interference susceptibility (Gray et al., 2003).
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. *Journal of Memory and Language, 59*, 390-412.
+- Baker, D. H., Vilidaite, G., Lygo, F. A., et al. (2021). Power contours: Optimising sample size and precision in experimental psychology and human neuroscience. *Psychological Methods, 26*, 295-314.
+- Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models. *Journal of Cognition, 1*(1), 9.
+- Cohen, J. (1988). *Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences* (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
+- Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. *Behavior Research Methods, 50*, 1166-1186.
+- Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). *Detection Theory: A User's Guide* (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
+- Verbruggen, F., Aron, A. R., Band, G. P., et al. (2019). A consensus guide to capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task. *eLife, 8*, e46323.