Eriksen flanker task
Selective response to a target while nearby distractors favor compatible or incompatible responses.
Performance task The format describes how observations are obtained, not an evidence rating.
What it measures
The effect of distractor-response compatibility on target performance.
What people do
The original task used letters. Arrow variants are common later implementations; target spacing, response mapping and trial proportions belong in the protocol.
What the scores mean
Compare latency and errors across specified conditions. Report the direction of the contrast and exclusions. Compatibility cost is not a universal concentration score.
This explains the logic of a score. It does not supply a test form, individual result or administration manual.
Development and versions
Barbara Eriksen and Charles Eriksen introduced the letter-based paradigm in 1974.
Evidence: (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974); (Hedge et al., 2017); (Spielman et al., 2020)
Reliability and validity evidence
The original abstract reports stronger slowing from opposite-response-set flankers. Later reliability work separates such experimental effects from stable differences among individuals.
Evidence belongs to a version, sample and interpretation. Read the source notes for what was actually inspected.
Evidence: (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974); (Hedge et al., 2017); (Spielman et al., 2020)
Where it is used
Research on selective attention, conflict and response control with a fully specified implementation.
Limits and common misreadings
- Different spacing or response maps can change the effect.
- A group-average effect does not establish individual diagnostic accuracy.
- A smaller latency cost with more errors may reflect a speed–accuracy tradeoff.
Read an example
Original teaching example
In an original teaching scenario, a participant responds to the middle symbol while ignoring its neighbors. Changing only the neighbors changes response competition. The investigator records errors as well as response time to evaluate the manipulation.
Constructed for learning; this is not a result from the instrument’s validation study.
Access and permission
A paradigm description is not a license to copy commercial implementations. Check the task code, stimulus assets and any normed version separately.
Textbook connection
Related contextPsychology 2e: 2.2 Approaches to Research
Conceptual context; the instrument-specific sources in this profile provide the primary evidence.
Related measures
Read a measure critically · Explore score examples · Review research methods
Sources and inspection notes
Checked October 22, 2026. An inspection date is not a publication date. Publisher information is not presented as independent validation; abstract-only and indexed-excerpt access are identified below.
- Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception &, 16(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03203267Consulted sourcePrimary research: publisher abstract
Letter-based target/flanker manipulation and response-compatibility effects inspected. Full article is subscription content; arrow variants are not attributed to this original protocol.
- Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2017). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1Consulted sourcePrimary research: open article abstract and conceptual introduction
Distinguishes dependable experimental effects from reliable individual differences. Online publication was 2017; journal issue is 2018. No universal reliability coefficient assigned to task families.
- Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-2-approaches-to-researchTextbook: conceptual context
Conceptual context; the instrument-specific sources in this profile provide the primary evidence.