{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03563636363636364, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005818181818181818, 'mean_word_length': 5.008733624454148, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Stopping and Restarting an Unfolding Action at Various Times

The ability to inhibit an unfolding action is usually investigated using a stop signal (or go—stop) task. The data from the stop-signal task are often described using a horse-race model whose key assumption is that each process (i.e., go, stop) exhibits stochastic independence. Using three variations of a coincident-timing task (i.e., go, go—stop, and go—stop—go) we extend previous considerations of stochastic independence by analysing the go latencies for prior effects of stopping. On random trials in the go—stop—go task the signal sweep was paused for various times at various distances before the target. Significant increases in latency errors were reported on those trials on which the signal was paused (p <.005). Further analyses of the pause trials revealed significant effects for both the stopping interval (p <.001) and the pause interval (p <.05). Tukey post hoc analyses demonstrated increased latency errors as a linear function of the stopping interval, as expected, and decreased latency errors as a nonlinear function of the pause interval. These latter results indicate that the latencies of the go process, as reflected in the latency errors, may not exhibit stochastic independence under certain conditions. Various control mechanisms were considered in an attempt to explain these data.