← For researchers

Example data

Study results

A study report you can explore

A complete report using realistic made-up results from 20 participants on Stroop and go/no-go. These are example data, not observations from a real study. Try the exclusion toggle, explore the charts and save the report.

Create your study

Choose Save as PDF in your browser’s print dialog. Charts and text are included in the report.

Study report

Attention and inhibition · example study

Example data — all participant results in this report are made up.

Example data — all participant results in this report are made up.

Report prepared 8 lis 2026

20Participants started
18Participants finished
5Participants flagged
0Participants excluded

Completion over time

Completion over time7 lis 2026, 10:00: 6 finished67 lis 2026, 11:00: 6 finished67 lis 2026, 12:00: 6 finished67 lis 2026, 10:007 lis 2026, 12:00
Completed participants, grouped by hour (UTC).

Devices / input

Touchscreen
13
Mouse / trackpad
7

Task languages

English
20

Data quality

Flags are review cues, not proof of invalid data. Exclusion removes a participant from every task, number, chart and report if any recorded task has a flag. Missing evidence is not treated as a clean bill of health.

All started participants were retained; no quality-flag exclusions were applied.

5 of the included participants have at least one flag. 0 participants are excluded.

Left the task1
Long absence1
Responses too fast1
Repeated the same answer0
At or below chance accuracy0
Unreliable browser timing0
Incomplete run2
Copied or cut0
Pasted into an answer1
Screenshot key pressed0
Answered soon after returning0
Flag definitions and browser limits

Test Stroopa

Extra time for mismatched colours

1:4664474850ea073d

20Measured participants
107,3 msMean
58 msStandard deviation
Extra time for mismatched colours (ms)Mean: 107,3 msP011: -2,2 msP015: 22,5 msP013: 25 msP001: 40,5 msP006: 56 msP019: 62,2 msP018: 77,1 msP007: 106,6 msP014: 110 msP020: 112,2 msP017: 117,5 msP005: 122,5 msP004: 141,6 msP016: 146,6 msP002: 148,4 msP012: 148,6 msP008: 160,9 msP003: 164,5 msP010: 171,5 msP009: 213,1 ms-15,145,2105,5165,7226
Extra time for mismatched colours (ms)
Measured participantsMeanMean ± 1 SD

One dot per measured participant · tap or hover for a code

Conditions within each participant

20 participants with both conditions0337,2674,51011,7P001: Matching colours 613,2 ms; Mismatched colours 653,7 msP002: Matching colours 498,5 ms; Mismatched colours 646,9 msP003: Matching colours 520,9 ms; Mismatched colours 685,4 msP004: Matching colours 570,5 ms; Mismatched colours 712,1 msP005: Matching colours 597,4 ms; Mismatched colours 719,9 msP006: Matching colours 583,1 ms; Mismatched colours 639,1 msP007: Matching colours 654,2 ms; Mismatched colours 760,8 msP008: Matching colours 514,5 ms; Mismatched colours 675,4 msP009: Matching colours 690,2 ms; Mismatched colours 903,3 msP010: Matching colours 505,4 ms; Mismatched colours 676,9 msP011: Matching colours 615,8 ms; Mismatched colours 613,6 msP012: Matching colours 524,4 ms; Mismatched colours 673 msP013: Matching colours 115 ms; Mismatched colours 140 msP014: Matching colours 509,8 ms; Mismatched colours 619,8 msP015: Matching colours 459,7 ms; Mismatched colours 482,2 msP016: Matching colours 664,2 ms; Mismatched colours 810,8 msP017: Matching colours 687,9 ms; Mismatched colours 805,4 msP018: Matching colours 461,6 ms; Mismatched colours 538,7 msP019: Matching colours 446,3 ms; Mismatched colours 508,5 msP020: Matching colours 570,3 ms; Mismatched colours 682,5 ms547,3 ms674,2 msMatching coloursMismatched coloursms
Each line connects one participant. Large circles show the group condition medians. 20 participants with both conditions

Mean difference = 107,3 ms; 95% CI [81,8 ms, 132,7 ms]

dz = 1,85; 95% CI [1,12, 2,58]

A comparison appears only when enough public players completed the same task configuration.

Test go/no-go

Accuracy

1:383cfc2626df5185

18Measured participants
91,4 %Mean
3,6 ppStandard deviation
Accuracy (%)Mean: 91,4 %P016: 84,4 %P005: 87,5 %P008: 87,5 %P011: 87,5 %P012: 89,1 %P001: 90,6 %P002: 90,6 %P006: 90,6 %P007: 90,6 %P014: 90,6 %P018: 90,6 %P009: 93,8 %P013: 93,8 %P015: 93,8 %P003: 95,3 %P004: 95,3 %P017: 95,3 %P010: 98,4 %83,587,591,495,399,3
Accuracy (%)
Measured participantsMeanMean ± 1 SD

One dot per measured participant · tap or hover for a code

Conditions within each participant

18 participants with both conditions011,723,335P001: Go: missed taps 8,3 %; No-go: incorrect taps 12,5 %P002: Go: missed taps 10,4 %; No-go: incorrect taps 6,3 %P003: Go: missed taps 4,2 %; No-go: incorrect taps 6,3 %P004: Go: missed taps 4,2 %; No-go: incorrect taps 6,3 %P005: Go: missed taps 10,4 %; No-go: incorrect taps 18,8 %P006: Go: missed taps 6,3 %; No-go: incorrect taps 18,8 %P007: Go: missed taps 10,4 %; No-go: incorrect taps 6,3 %P008: Go: missed taps 6,3 %; No-go: incorrect taps 31,3 %P009: Go: missed taps 8,3 %; No-go: incorrect taps 0 %P010: Go: missed taps 2,1 %; No-go: incorrect taps 0 %P011: Go: missed taps 8,3 %; No-go: incorrect taps 25 %P012: Go: missed taps 4,2 %; No-go: incorrect taps 31,3 %P013: Go: missed taps 8,3 %; No-go: incorrect taps 0 %P014: Go: missed taps 10,4 %; No-go: incorrect taps 6,3 %P015: Go: missed taps 0 %; No-go: incorrect taps 25 %P016: Go: missed taps 10,4 %; No-go: incorrect taps 31,3 %P017: Go: missed taps 0 %; No-go: incorrect taps 18,8 %P018: Go: missed taps 6,3 %; No-go: incorrect taps 18,8 %7,3 %15,6 %Go: missed tapsNo-go: incorrect taps%
Each line connects one participant. Large circles show the group condition medians. 18 participants with both conditions

Mean difference = 8 percentage points; 95% CI [2,4 percentage points, 13,6 percentage points]

dz = 0,66; 95% CI [0,15, 1,17]

A comparison appears only when enough public players completed the same task configuration.

Editable starting text for a paper. Check your study design, recruitment and consent details before using it.

Methods

Example data — Participants completed Test Stroopa (version 1:4664474850ea073d) i Test go/no-go (version 1:383cfc2626df5185) in Helibrain using browser-based tasks with snapshotted configurations and scorer versions. The included sample comprised 20 participants (18 finished all tasks). Recorded timing and selected task parameters were Test Stroopa: Practice trials: 4, Scored trials: 40, Matching-colour trials: 50%, Timeout (ms): 3000, Interstimulus interval (ms): 500 i Feedback duration (ms): 700; observed mean duration 58,4 s i Test go/no-go: Total trials: 40, No-go trials: 25%, Stimulus duration (ms): 800, Interstimulus interval (ms): 600 i Feedback duration (ms): 900; observed mean duration 72,2 s. Recorded input devices were Touchscreen: 13 i Mouse / trackpad: 7; task languages were English: 20. All started participants were retained; no quality-flag exclusions were applied. Browser timing and advisory quality flags were recorded when available; absent telemetry was not evidence of an unflagged run. Tasks and scoring are documented in Helibrain cognitive tests: methods and scoring (concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.24052521).

Results

Example data — Among the included participants, 18 of 20 completed the full sequence; 5 had one or more advisory quality flags. For Test Stroopa, 20 measurable results yielded a mean of 107,3 ms (SD 58 ms; 95% CI [81,8 ms, 132,7 ms]) for the measure “Extra time for mismatched colours”. For the within-participant contrast (Mismatched colours minus Matching colours; 20 pairs), the mean difference was 107,3 ms (95% CI [81,8 ms, 132,7 ms]); paired Cohen’s dz was 1,85 (95% CI [1,12, 2,58]). For Test go/no-go, 18 measurable results yielded a mean of 91,4 % (SD 3,6 percentage points; 95% CI [89,8 %, 93,1 %]) for the measure “Accuracy”. For the within-participant contrast (No-go: incorrect taps minus Go: missed taps; 18 pairs), the mean difference was 8 percentage points (95% CI [2,4 percentage points, 13,6 percentage points]); paired Cohen’s dz was 0,66 (95% CI [0,15, 1,17]). All estimates are descriptive. Confidence intervals use normal approximations; no p-values or significance tests were calculated. Public-player comparisons, where shown, are contextual and are not population norms.

Intervals are descriptive normal approximations (±1.96 standard errors), including paired Cohen’s dz. They may be imprecise in small samples. No p-values or significance tests are used.