Cognitive Paradigm Design

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.

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:

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

Trial Counts

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