Page 25 - JSOM Fall 2023

3. Reeves DL, Winter KP, Bleiberg J, Kane RL. ANAM Genogram: 23. Verbruggen F, Chambers CD, Logan GD. Fictitious inhibitory
®
Historical perspectives, description, and current endeavors. Arch differences: how skewness and slowing distort the estimation of
Clin Neuropsych. 20071;22(Suppl_1):S15–S37. stopping latencies. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(3):352–362.
4. Roebuck-Spencer T, Sun W, Cernich AN, et al. Assessing change 24. Ratcliff R. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychol Rev. 1978;85
with the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (2):59–108.
(ANAM): Issues and challenges. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007; 25. Ratcliff R. Measuring psychometric functions with the diffusion
22(Suppl 1):S79–S87. model. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014;40(2):870–888.
5. Vincent AS, Roebuck-Spencer T, Gilliland K, Schlegel R. Auto- 26. Correll J, Wittenbrink B, Crawford MT, Sadler MS. Stereotypic
mated neuropsychological assessment metrics (v4) traumatic vision: How stereotypes disambiguate visual stimuli. J Pers Soc
brain injury battery: military normative data. Mil Med. 2012;177 Psychol. 2015;108(2):219.
(3):256–269. 27. Johnson DJ, Cesario J, Pleskac TJ. How prior information and
6. DoD Instruction 6490.13. Comprehensive policy on traumatic police experience impact decisions to shoot. J Pers Soc Psychol.
brain injury-related neurocognitive assessments by the mili- 2018;115(4):601–623.
tary services. 31 March 2017. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/ 28. Pleskac TJ, Cesario J, Johnson DJ. How race affects evidence
54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/649013p.pdf?ver=2019-04- accumulation during the decision to shoot. Psychon Bull Rev.
03-145812-913. Accessed 27 March 2023. 2018;25(4):1301–1330.
7. Bryan C, Hernandez AM. Magnitudes of decline on Automated 29. Todd AR, Johnson DJ, Lassetter B, et al. Category salience and ra-
Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics subtest scores relative cial bias in weapon identification: A diffusion modeling approach
to predeployment baseline performance among servicemembers J Pers Soc Psychol. 2021;120(3):672–693.
evaluated for traumatic brain injury in Iraq. J Head Trauma Re- 30. Gomez P, Ratcliff R, Perea M. A model of the go/no-go task. J Exp
habil. 2012;27(1):45–54. Psychol Gen. 2007;136(3):389–413.
8. Kelly MP, Coldren RL, Parish RV, et al. Assessment of acute con- 31. Ratcliff R, Huang-Pollock C, McKoon G. Modeling individual
cussion in the combat environment. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. differences in the go/no-go task with a diffusion model. Decision
2012;27(4):375–388. (Wash D C). 2018;5(1):42–62.
9. Luethcke CA, Bryan CJ, Morrow CE, Isler WC. Comparison of 32. Ratcliff R, Van Dongen HP. Diffusion model for one-choice reac-
concussive symptoms, cognitive performance, and psychological tion-time tasks and the cognitive effects of sleep deprivation. Proc
symptoms between acute blast-versus nonblast-induced mild trau- National Acad Sci. 2011;108(27):11285–11290.
matic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2011;17(1):36–45. 33. Munnik A, Näswall K, Woodward G, Helton WS. The quick and
10. Belanger HG, Vincent AS, Caserta RJ, et al. Automated neuro- the dead: A paradigm for studying friendly fire. Appl Ergon.
psychological assessment metrics (v4) military expanded battery: 2020;84:103032.
Normative data for special operations forces. Clin Neuropsychol. 34. Biggs AT, Cain MS, Mitroff SR. Cognitive training can reduce
2022;36(8):2300–2312. civilian casualties in a simulated shooting environment. Psychol
11. Freitas S, Simões MR, Alves L, Santana I. Montreal cognitive as- Sci. 2015;26(8):1164–1176.
sessment: validation study for mild cognitive impairment and Alz- 35. Hamilton JA, Lambert G, Suss J, Biggs AT. Can cognitive training
heimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2013;27(1):37–43. improve shoot/don‘t-shoot performance? Evidence from live fire
12. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cog- exercises. Amer J Psychol. 2019;132(2):179–194.
nitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cogni- 36. Wilson KM, Head J, De Joux NR, et al. Friendly fire and the
tive impairment. J Amer Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–699. sustained attention to response task. Human Factors. 2015;57(7):
13. Smith T, Gildeh N, Holmes C. The Montreal Cognitive Assess- 1219–1234.
ment: validity and utility in a memory clinic setting. Can J Psych. 37. Wilson K, Head J, Helton WS. Friendly fire in a simulated firearms
2007;52(5):329–332. task. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society
14. Biggs AT. How to enhance military research using mathematical annual meeting. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2013.
psychology. J Math Soc. 2022;106:102619. 38. Biggs AT, Pettijohn KA. The role of inhibitory control in shoot/
15. Biggs AT, Hirsch DA. Using Monte Carlo simulations to translate don’t-shoot decisions. Q J Exp Psychol. 2022;75(3):536–549.
military and law enforcement training results to operational met- 39. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Response inhibition in the stop-signal
rics. J Defense Modeling Sim. 2022;19(3):403–415. paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(11):418–424.
16. Logan GD, Cowan WB. On the ability to inhibit thought and 40. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Automatic and controlled response
action: A theory of an act of control. Psychol Rev. 1984;91(3): inhibition: associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal
295–327. paradigms. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008;137(4):649.
17. Tiego J, Testa R, Bellgrove MA, et al. A hierarchical model of 41. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Proactive adjustments of response strat-
inhibitory control. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1339. egies in the stop-signal paradigm. J Exp Psychol Gen Hum Per-
18. Biggs AT. Applying inhibitory control theories to shoot/don’t- cept Perform. 2009;35(3):835.
shoot decisions. Applied Cog Psychol. 2022;36(1):154–165. 42. Voss A, Voss J. Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion
19. Clark K, Cain MS, Adamo SH, Mitroff SR. Overcoming hurdles model analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(4):767–775.
in translating visual search research between the lab and the field. 43. Voss A, Voss J, Lerche V. Assessing cognitive processes with dif-
In: The influence of attention, learning, and motivation on visual fusion model analyses: A tutorial based on fast-dm-30. Frontiers
search. New York, NY: Springer;2012. Psychol. 2015;6:336.
20. Blacker KJ, Hamilton J, Roush G, et al. Cognitive training for 44. Brainard DH. The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):
military application: a review of the literature and practical guide. 433–436.
J Cog Enhancement. 2019;3(1):30–51. 45. Pelli DG, Vision S. The VideoToolbox software for visual psycho-
21. Brunyé TT, Brou R, Doty TJ, et al. A review of U.S. Army research physics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis. 1997;10:
contributing to cognitive enhancement in military contexts. J Cog 437–442.
Enhancement. 2020;12:1–6.
22. Verbruggen F, Aron AR, Band GP, et al. A consensus guide to PMID: 37224387; DOI: 10.55460/UIMJ-G0CG
capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in
the stop-signal task. Elife. 2019;8:e46323.

SOF Cognitive Assessments | 23