This is a classic 'Attentional Blink' Task. Measure temporal limitations in the ability to deploy visual attention.

This is a classic 'Change Blindness' Task. Measure how long it takes participants to spot the difference!

The dot-probe is a classic task used to assess selective attention. Content note: this task includes aversive images.

The classic Flanker Task (or Eriksen Flanker Task) is a 'response inhibition' test used to assess participants' ability to suppress responses. Find out more about this task on our Flanker page.

This Inattention and Impulsivity task is loosely based on a lab study conducted by Serena Bezdjian, Laura A. Baker, Dora Isabel Lozano, and Adrian Raine in 2009 on twins aged 9 and 10. Reference: Bezdjian et al. (2009)

This tests vigilance, a prolonged state of concentration. Participants must stare at the image of a ticking clock and identify when the second hand jumps more than it should. This example has a jump rate of around 8% and lasts a minute, whereas a full task would jump around 0.5% of the time, and last much longer. Reference: Mackworth (1948)

This spatial orientation task measures the effects of cueing on reaction times to target stimuli. This example requires the participant to press one of two keys when a green 'thumbs up’ appears in the corresponding box. 75% of the time, a green circle will appear in the correct box before the stimulus appears. Reference: Wikipedia

A classic sustained attention reaction test (or SART).

View a classic Implicit Association Test: Category sorting task. Categories of images are paired with another category of interest. Differences in accuracy and RT are used to potentially measure implicit bias.

View a classic Implicit Association Test: Category sorting task, measuring strength of association between categories of images and word categories. Differences in accuracy and RT are used to potentially measure implicit bias.

View a classic Implicit Association Test: Category sorting task, measuring strength of association between two sets of word categories. Differences in accuracy and RT are used to potentially measure implicit bias.

View a classic Implicit Association Test, comparing RT and Accuracy in categorising different aged people against positive and negative words. This is potentially a measure of implicit bias towards groups.

View a Classic semantic priming task. Targets are paired with related or neutral primes. The semantic priming effect is the difference in RT and Accuracy a related prime produces.

Click the scrambled letters in the right order to make a word.

Name the animal in the picture! Participants are presented with the silhouette of a common animal. They have to type the name of the animal.

Count how many zeros appear in a grid. This is a classic real effort task. A grid of 1s and 0s is shown to the participant. They have to respond with the number of 0s. The grid is shown as an image, to make it more bot proof.

Click the scrambled words in the right order to make a sentence.

Can you find the Y among the Xs?

Select 'Strongly Agree' on a Likert scale. This is a simple questionnaire.

Choose a colour from the list of words. This is a simple questionnaire.

This keyboard task measures response time and choice response times, which correlate with general intelligence.

This task is used as a measure of reasoning and the ability to 'think outside the box'. Participants are asked to connect 9 dots with four straight lines or fewer, without lifting the pen and without crossing the same dot more than once.

This classic task assesses your ability to complete patterns across shape and colour. The participant has to choose an object to complete a puzzle display.

This task is used as a measure of creativity. Participants are given a group of 3 apparently unrelated words and must think of the 4th word which connects them.

This task is a logic puzzle. Out of a set of four cards participants must work out which card must be turned over to see if a rule has been broken.

This task assesses the relative weighting a participant puts on reward at different time periods. Will they accept a delay in receiving a reward for a greater gain?

Measures a teenager's judgement of risky situations, before and after feedback on how different groups rate the risk of these situations.

An evidence accumulation and judgement task - the participant is repeatedly asked to reveal one of two different urns. The urn contents change with each trial and the participant has to choose the urn which most likely yields a reward.

This task assesses how much participants are prepared to pay for different items. This example uses snacks.

Can participants weigh up the utility of two different slot machines, based on probability (which machine pays out more often) and magnitude (how much each machine pays out)?

This is a classic experiment in Game Theory. It assesses a person's bias towards cooperating or betraying another for gain. The participant completes multiple instances, with different outcomes given - thus introducing a learning element. Reference: Wikipedia

This is a classic task in Experimental Economy. It involves a social and economic dilemma where individuals have a choice to secretly contribute some of their private funds to put into the public fund pot. These ‘public goods’ are then multiplied by the factor and distributed evenly among players. The game assesses individuals' willingness to cooperate depending on the multiplying factors. This task was created using both Task Builder and an additional script. Reference: Wikipedia

This task assesses an individual's comprehension ability when reading textual information. First a segment of text is read, then participants are asked questions assessing their understanding.

This type of assessment aims to quantify an individual's mathematical ability. Participants are shown different math examples in a question-answer format. They must input the correct numerical answer as quickly as possible within the timelimit.

Here a number of unfamiliar words are shown (French in this example), and are paired with their familiar translations. They are then tested with all words on the screen (choose the translation by clicking), and then in a free recall stage (type in the answer).

In this task, participants are presented with unfamiliar vocabulary words and their translations. They are then tested on their recall. Any trials on which they give an incorrect answer are repeated until all trials have been answered correctly.

This demonstrates a classic Positive Mood Induction task.

Listen to a series of tones and select which one is the quietest. The task is designed to screen out participants who are not wearing headphones. This task was created using Gorilla's Code Editor. Reference: GitHub

This task tests participants' viewing distance from the screen, enabling presentation of Gabor patches and other stimuli that require calculation of visual angle. This task was created using Gorilla's Code Editor. Reference: GitHub

Participants complete two different tasks that alternate every two trials. Participants typically slow down between tasks as they shift attention. In this example, one task involves identifying a shape, and the other task involves identifying the colour of that shape. Find out more about this task on our Alternate Task Switching page.

This conditional feedback task assesses how participants learn different stimulus-response mappings by rewarding certain responses to images over others. For example; response 1 pays £1 against response 2, which pays £5.

Participants complete two different tasks that switch frequently. This differs from alternate task switching as cues indicate which task participants must complete for each trial, rather than switching for alternate trials. In this example, participants must either identify colour or shape. Reference: Wikipedia

The Digit Span is a classic Short Term Memory (STM) task. Participants are asked to repeat back increasingly lengthy sequences of numbers. The longer the sequence they are able to recall, the greater the assumed STM capacity. Find out more about this task on our Digit Span page.

In this classic Iowa Gambling Task, your goal is to win as much money as possible. You'll start with $2000. Each card selected will give you a reward, but sometimes you'll also have to pay a fee. Try to see how much money you can make!

This task is based on the original procedure described by Bechara and colleagues: Reference: [Paper] Bechara et al. (1994)

Participants learn associations between image stimuli which have noise associated with them. In this example, participants must learn which flowers live in a forest. One flower is more likely to be correct (more probable for that forest). At the end of learning, participants have to choose the correct flower (the more probable one). Reference: Wikipedia

This probabilistic learning task comprises separate 'rounds' which assess the participant's ability to learn from uncertain information. The participant receives feedback after each response, which is only accurate to a certain probability. At the end of each round, the participant is given feedback on the actual total number of correct responses. Reference: Wikipedia

Measures the stimulus-response compatibility effect. This version is a left-right location task, where word and location match and mismatch. Mismatched trials typically have longer response times than matched trials. Reference: Wikipedia

This n-back task requires participants to respond when any given item is repeated in a sequence n instances ago. So on a 1-back trial, repeated targets would require a response, 2-back would have another item in between, and 3-back would have 2 items in between. Reference: Wikipedia

Participants must respond, within a certain time window, to a cue on screen. However, a delayed stop signal is shown on some trials, which requires no response at all. This aims to measure response inhibition of the participant. Find out more about this task on our Stop Signal Delay Task page.

Classic Stroop Task, in which colour names mismatch and match their text colour. Desktop version uses keyboard input. Mobile version uses touch buttons. Find out more about this task on our Stroop page.

Designed to measure the ability to adapt to changing conditions of reinforcement, or ‘set-shifting’. Participants must identify a rule to correctly match a sample card to four options. This rule is not stated and shifts every 10 cards. In this example, the rule shifts every 4 cards. Find out more about this task on our Wisconsin Card Sorting Task page.

This naming task comprises a series of audio clips. After each audio clip, participants are asked to repeat the word they heard. Here we use simple words. This task can be made more difficult with the use of more complex audio clips, including accents, audio distortion or longer sentence recall.

This task requires participants to categorise a target word into two semantic categories. Here we use two categories: Fish and Mammals. This allows for the inclusion of words which often lead to an error - for instance an aquatic mammal such as Dolphin.

This task requires participants to press a key to indicate if the string of letters they are viewing is a word or not a word.

This naming task comprises a series of pictures. After each image, participants are asked to type the name of the item in the image. Here we use different animals. This task can be made more difficult with the use of more abstract images, and less concrete words.

This task displays a series of sentences word by word. The participant reveals the next word by pressing Space on the keyboard. The rest of the sentence is masked until each word is revealed. This task uses the Reading component in Task Builder 2.

A simple demonstration of a Visual World Paradigm task for investigating predictive processes in language comprehension. An image is displayed in each quadrant of the screen. The location of the participant's gaze is tracked as they listen to a spoken sentence. This task uses the Eye Tracking (Webgazer) component in Task Builder 2 to perform webcam-based eye tracking. Reference: Allopenna, Magnuson, & Tanenhaus (1998)

The Digit Span is a classic Short Term Memory (STM) task. Participants are asked to repeat back increasingly lengthy sequences of numbers. The longer the sequence they are able to recall, the greater the assumed STM capacity. Find out more about this task on our Digit Span page.

Trials are presented in two stages: First a list of words are shown item-by-item. Then a grid of images are shown with each image corresponding to a previously shown word. Participants must select the images which represent the words in the correct order. Some sequences of words are repeated more than once - this often leads to greater accuracy and shorter reaction times, termed Hebb learning. This sample is loosely based on a study by Page et al. Reference: Hebb (1961) (Pages 37-51)
Reference: Wikipedia
Reference: [Paper]Page, M Angustias et al. (2006) J Exp Psychol Learning, Mem, & Cogni 32(4):716-733.

This experiment is loosely based on the Levels of Processing Framework (Craik & Tulving, 1975). Participants judge whether a target word has a certain number of letters, rhymes with another word, is in a category, or fits in a given sentence. Relating to the levels of processing: Structural, Phonemic, Category and Sentence. Reference: [Paper] Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). J Exp Psychol: General, 104(3):268-294.

Participants memorise a list of words, then another list is displayed sequentially - with the participant deciding if they are old (memorised) or new words. Foils can include semantically related words (i.e. 'Bed' for a word list including 'Sleep', 'Pillow', 'Night'), which encourage false memory inclusion.

Research has shown that incorrect or leading post-event information can be incorporated into memory. This task is loosely based on Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) task in which participants must make a speed judgement. The question asked differed, using one of a list of words such as ‘smashed’ ‘bumped’ or ‘hit’. The word used has been found to affect speed judgements, with ‘smashed’ eliciting a higher estimate than ‘hit’. Reference: Wikipedia

A memory task originally developed by Kirchner, in which participants must remember letters from N trials ago. This version is a 2-Back task. Reference: Wikipedia

Participants are shown a variety of words and images onscreen, and then are asked to recall as many as they can. Typically, participants are more likely to remember images than words. Paivo (1973) suggested that this is due to images being dually encoded in memory – as both a word and an image. Reference: Wikipedia

A list of words with matching images are presented sequentially. Participants then have to recall as many words as possible by typing in to a text box. This aims to replicate the primacy and recency effects in memory, where items first seen and most recently seen are more likely to be remembered.

Confidence judgements regarding prior eyewitness testimony are greatly inflated when feedback is given to eyewitnesses suggesting their judgements are accurate or mistaken. In this task, participants are allocated randomly to either a feedback or no feedback condition. Participants are shown 6 images of faces alongside 6 objects. They are then asked which face was associated with one of the objects. In the feedback condition, the participants are then told ‘Well Done, you got it right!’ and then all participants are asked for a confidence judgement. Reference: [Meta-analysis] Steblay, Wells and Douglass (2014)

Learners who are asked to test their knowledge as part of learning, and receive feedback, perform better on subsequent long-term memory tests than learners who simply study for the same length of time. In this task, participants are asked to memorise 5 French vocabulary terms. Half the participants are given a short practice test of this knowledge, half are given more time with the word pairs. After a delay of 3 minutes, the participants then test their knowledge. Reference: Wikipedia

Participants must correctly identify which of the options is a rotation of the target object. This is achieved through mental visual representation. Reference: Wikipedia

Audio of sentences are played to the participant. They then have to write down what they heard. The audio varies by predictability, which should then impact on the accuracy of transcription from memory.

Audio of spoken sentences are played to the participant. After each sentence, the participant must rate the predictability of the sentence.

This letter finding task assesses the identification or features at a global level vs a local level. Participants have to identify whether a letter is present or not present in an image. The letter may be individual, or made up of smaller letters, but global features typically take less time to identify. This sample is loosely based on a classic study by Navon. Reference: Navon, D. (1977)

The Thatcher Illusion refers to a participant's inability to notice the inversion of lips and eyes when a face is presented upside-down. Participants are shown a series of faces, some with features inverted and/or whole face inverted. Participants have to detect if the face is natural or not. Reference: Wikipedia

A Visual Search task in which participants must find an item with two features, whilst being distracted by other items that each share one of those features. This conjunctive search example includes different numbers of distractor items. The more distractor items, the worse performance should be. Reference: Wikipedia

A Visual Search task in which participants must find one item (Y) in an array whilst being distracted by other items (X) that look visually similar. This visual search task makes use of the Hotspot component to overlay an invisible clickable area on an image. Reference: Wikipedia

This Questionnaire administers the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) of the Big 5 Personality Measure. This measures the traits of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Reference: Wikipedia

This Questionnaire administers the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11). This obtains scores of a person's impulsivity: attentional impulsivity, motor impulsivity, non-planning impulsivity. Reference: [Paper] Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of clinical psychology, 51(6), 768-774.

A gamified version of the classic Categorisation task. The task requires participants to categorise a target word into two semantic categories. Here we use two categories: Fish and Mammals. This allows for the inclusion of words which often lead to an error - for instance an aquatic mammal such as Dolphin.

A gamified version of the classic attention Flanker task. The classic Flanker Task (or Eriksen Flanker Task) is a 'response inhibition' test used to assess participants' ability to suppress responses. Find out more about this task on our Flanker page.

A gamified version of the classic Iowa Gambling Task. In this game, your goal is to win as much money as possible. You'll start with $2000. Each pot selected will give you a reward, but sometimes you'll also have to pay a fee. Try to see how much money you can make!

A gamified version of the classic Memory Intrusion task. Here participants memorise a list of words, then another list is displayed sequentially - with the participant deciding if they are old (memorised) or new words. Foils can include semantically related words which encourage false memory inclusion.

A gamified verion of the classic Prisoner's Dilemma task - a classic experiment in Game Theory. It assesses a person's bias towards cooperating or betraying another for gain. The participant completes multiple instances, with different outcomes given - thus introducing a learning element.

A gamified version of the classic Wisconsin Card Sorting Task. The task designed to measure the ability to adapt to changing conditions of reinforcement, or ‘set-shifting’. Participants must identify a rule to correctly match a sample card to four options.

A list of words with matching images are presented sequentially. Participants then have to recall as many words as possible by typing in to a text box. This aims to replicate the primacy and recency effects in memory, where items first seen and most recently seen are more likely to be remembered.