Flanker Task
The Flanker task, introduced by Eriksen & Eriksen (1974), is a classic inhibitory-control paradigm. By distinguishing a central target from surrounding distractors, it trains selective attention and response inhibition.
Intermediate: 2.2s per trial, 30 trials, moderate pace.
A row of 5 arrows appears. Ignore the 4 outer ones and respond only to the CENTER arrow. If the center points left, press the ← key (or the "← Left" on-screen button). If it points right, press → (or "Right →"). One key per trial. Be fast and accurate.
History
No training records yet
Reference: Eriksen & Eriksen (1974).
Flanker Task · scientific basis
Introduced by Eriksen & Eriksen (1974), the Flanker task measures inhibitory control via conflict between a central target and lateral distractors. Fan et al. (2002) established the modern arrow-based parameters in the Attention Network Test (ANT).
Expert-mode parameters
These are the standard parameters from the canonical paradigm (used by the "Expert" difficulty).
| Parameter | Standard value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Stimulus | Row of 5 arrows; respond to center | Fan et al. 2002 (ANT) |
| Response window | 1700 ms | Fan et al. 2002 |
| Trials | 40 (short) / 288 (full ANT) | Fan et al. 2002 |
| Congruent:Incongruent | 50:50 | Standard convention |
| ITI | 500 ms (this implementation) | Common simplification |
Healthy-population norms (by age)
Typical healthy-population ranges; Flanker effect = RT_incongruent − RT_congruent. Thresholds derived from Fan 2002 and Rueda 2004 mean/SD by age band; 'excellent' corresponds to mean − 1 SD. Inhibitory control peaks at 18-34 y and declines slowly thereafter. Assessment mode matches your actual age.
| Age band | Flanker effect Excellent (ms) | Accuracy mean | Flanker effect mean (ms) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age 8-9 | ≤ 45 | ~92% | ~100 | medium |
| Age 10-11 | ≤ 35 | ~95% | ~80 | medium |
| Age 12-13 | ≤ 30 | ~96% | ~65 | medium |
| Age 14-15 | ≤ 30 | ~97% | ~60 | weak (interp.) |
| Age 16-17 | ≤ 27 | ~97% | ~55 | weak (interp.) |
| Age 18-24 | ≤ 30 | ~97% | ~55 | strong |
| Age 25-34 | ≤ 33 | ~97% | ~60 | strong |
| Age 35-44 | ≤ 35 | ~96% | ~65 | weak (interp.) |
| Age 45-54 | ≤ 40 | ~96% | ~75 | weak (interp.) |
| Age 55-64 | ≤ 50 | ~95% | ~90 | medium |
| Age 65+ | ≤ 55 | ~94% | ~110 | medium |
Standard output metrics
- ·Mean RT per condition — Congruent & incongruent reported separately
- ·Accuracy per condition — Guards against speed-accuracy trade-off
- ·Flanker effect (ΔRT) — RT_incongruent − RT_congruent; smaller = better inhibition
Citations
- 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. DOI
- Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. J Cogn Neurosci, 14(3), 340-347. DOI
- Rueda, M. R., et al. (2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1029-1040. DOI
- MacLeod, J. W., et al. (2010). Appraising the ANT. Neuropsychology, 24(5), 637-651. DOI
All reference ranges come from published peer-reviewed literature. For personal training reference only — not a medical diagnosis. Full methodology: docs/PARADIGMS.md.
This tool is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute medical advice or a clinical diagnosis.