Table 2 Which variables influence the violation?

Most variables do not affect the violation (although note that Bayes factors (BF10) in support of the null hypothesis in rows 1 and 3 to 5 were approximately 3, suggesting anecdotal evidence), but extremely short deadlines (row 2) reduce the violation and introducing stimulus or motor selectivity increases the violation (rows 6 to 8, though note equivocal Bayes factors). Numbers in parentheses in the condition column correspond to the condition column in Table 1. Statistics were based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) interaction of the trial type (preceding no stop versus stop fail) and the condition on mean RT. ƞ2 is a measure of effect size

ComparisonConditionViolationPBF01η2
1Fast vs. slow
subjects
RT below median
(1/2) vs. RT above
media (1/2)
6 vs. 15 ms0.5493.0340.0009846
2Varying go
response deadlines
300 ms (3/6) vs. 500 ms
(4/7) vs. 700 ms
(5/8)
−16 vs. −5 vs. 3 ms0.0112.4780.008
3Low vs. high stop
probability
0.2 (9/11) vs. 0.4 stop
probability (10/12)
8 vs. 27 ms0.1272.5820.007
4Saccadic vs. manual
responses
Saccadic (15) vs.
manual responses (9)
−9 vs. −3 ms0.7543.7999.382 × 10−5
5Auditory vs. visual
responses
Auditory (16/17) vs.
visual responses
(18/19)
−22 vs. −13 ms0.6373.0950.0007657
6Stimulus selective
vs. simple stopping
Stimulus selective (20)
vs. simple stopping (9)
55 vs. −1 ms0.0640.8020.018
7Stimulus selective
vs. simple stopping
Stimulus selective
(13/22/24) vs.
simple stopping (9)
49 vs. 24 ms0.0180.7940.014
8Motor selective vs.
simple stopping
Motor selective (14)
vs. simple stopping
(11/12)
69 vs. 36 ms0.0191.4670.015