Neurocognition
DOI: 10.15154/z563-zd24 (Release 5.1)
List of Instruments
General Information
An overview of the ABCD Study® can be found at abcdstudy.org and detailed descriptions of the assessment protocols are available at ABCD Protocols. This page describes the contents of various instruments available for download. To understand the context of this information, refer to the release note Start Page.
Detailed information about the instruments, the constructs they are intended to measure, and relevant citations for each measure are provided in the following:
Luciana, M., Bjork, J. M., Nagel, B. J., Barch, D. M., Gonzalez, R., Nixon, S. J., & Banich, M. T. (2018). Adolescent neurocognitive development and impacts of substance use: Overview of the adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) baseline neurocognition battery. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 32, 67–79. Find here
Anokhin, A. P., Luciana, M., Banich, M., Barch, D., Bjork, J. M., Gonzalez, M. R., Gonzalez, R., Haist, F., Jacobus, J., Lisdahl, K., McGlade, E., McCandliss, B., Nagel, B., Nixon, S. J., Tapert, S., Kennedy, J. T., & Thompson, W. (2022). Age-related changes and longitudinal stability of individual differences in ABCD Neurocognition measures. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 54, 101078. Find here
Updates and Notes
The ABCD Neurocognitive Workgroup suggests that users of these data first examine the participants’ vision using the snellen_va_y variable in the Snellen Visual Screener. It is possible that poor vision could influence task performance.
COVID-19 and Neurocognitive Testing
In response to COVID-19 restrictions beginning in March 2020, ABCD pivoted to remote testing when in-person testing was not possible or feasible, and a subsequent hybrid in-person/remote testing procedure as sites allowed. This affected the two-, three-year, and 4-year follow-up assessments and the 30-month and 42-month assessments conducted from March 2020 on. Remote and hybrid testing required participants to complete some tasks and surveys on their own devices (i.e., phone, tablet, desktop, or laptop computer). Note that remote performance was monitored by research associates, when possible, using Zoom’s screen sharing feature. Hybrid sessions included both remote and in-person components. The variety of devices, relative to the ABCD standard using Apple iPad devices exclusively, may affect task performances and users should consider this when analyzing data spanning the pre-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 periods. In addition, some tasks were incompatible with remote testing and were not administered during this time. The following guidance is provided.
Determining In-person, remote, and Hybrid for Overall Visit Type
Refer to the release note Start Page.
Specific Visit Information for Neurocognition Tasks
The visit type (in-person, remote, or hybrid) is specified for each of the individual neurocognition tasks in the Neurocognition Assessment Administration instrument. The neurocog_device, ncog_device, and neurocog_2_device variables describe any issues that may have occurred in using participant devices. These codes are as follows:
Completed in full without disruption
Completed in full with temporary technical disruption
Completed partially due to technical disruption
Did not complete due to not being able to share screen
Did not complete due to technical issues
Note about the Calculation of NIH Toolbox Summary Measures
We administered the NIH Toolbox Dimensional Card Sort task only at the Baseline assessment. We did not administer the NIH Toolbox List Sorting Working Memory task at 2-year follow-up (but did at 4-year follow-up). Because of this, we are unable to compute a Fluid Composite Score or a Total Cognitive Composite Score for the 2-year and 4-year follow-up assessments.
Changes in the Neurocognitive Assessments Due to COVID-19
Some adjustments in testing procedures were required for remote testing.
We did not administer the NIH Toolbox Pattern Comparison Processing Speed task remotely as it was not possible to do so.
ABCD employed remote administrations on participant devices using the Inquisit system from Millisecond for the following tasks:
Millisecond Flanker Task (substitute for NIH Toolbox Flanker task)
The Inquisit Millisecond system is used for the following tasks (remote [participant device] or in-person [ABCD iPad]):
Instrument Descriptions
Youth Instruments
NIH Toolbox (Cognition)
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_nihtb
Measure Description: The NIH Cognition Toolbox comprises seven tasks administered via iPad (Scoring & Interpretation Guide; Composite Score Technical Manual). For each task, raw scores, and uncorrected and age corrected scores are available. The following tasks are included in the battery:
Picture Vocabulary: Language vocabulary knowledge. A component of the Crystallized Composite Score. Technical Manual
Flanker Inhibitory Control & Attention: Attention, cognitive control, executive function, inhibition of automatic response. A component of the Fluid Composite Score. Note, remote assessments used a replicated Flanker task administered using the Inquisit platform, because the NIH Toolbox version could not be administered remotely. Technical Manual
Picture Sequence Memory: Episodic memory; sequencing. A component of the Fluid Composite Score. Technical Manual
Dimensional Change Card Sort: Executive function: set shifting, flexible thinking, concept formation. A component of the Fluid Composite Score. Administered in Baseline assessment only. Technical Manual
Pattern Comparison Processing Speed: Information processing, processing speed. A component of the Fluid Composite Score. Technical Manual
Oral Reading Recognition: Language, oral reading (decoding) skills, academic achievement. A component of the Crystallized Composite Score. Technical Manual
List Sorting Working Memory: Working memory, information processing. A component of the Fluid Composite Score. Administered in Baseline assessment and 4-year follow-up. Technical Manual
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables in Summary Scores: 118
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: Baseline (all 7 tasks administered); subset of 5 tasks administered in 2-year follow-up; 4-year follow-up; 6 tasks administered in 4-year follow-up.
Modifications since initial administration: Remote assessments in the 2-year and 4-year follow-up protocols used a Flanker task using the Inquisit system from Millisecond. This task was designed to mimic the NIH Toolbox Flanker task as closely as possible. We encourage users to consider this change in their analyses.
Notes and special considerations: Note that in the 2-year follow-up assessment, five of the seven NIH Toolbox tasks were administered. The Dimensional Change Card Sort was administered in the baseline testing only, and List Sorting Working Memory was administered in the baseline and 4-year follow-up assessments. Because of this, the NIH Toolbox Fluid and Total Composite Scores could not be calculated for the follow-up assessments.
For longitudinal analyses, we recommend using either uncorrected Scaled Scores or raw scores.
In cases with remote administration of the NIH Toolbox, the Crystallized Cognition Composite Score is not calculated.
Reference: McDonald, Skye (Ed.) (2014). Special series on the Cognition Battery of the NIH Toolbox. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 20 (6), 487-651. Find here
Cash Choice Task
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_cct
Measure Description: The Cash Choice is a single-item proxy for the delay discounting task that asked the youth “Let’s pretend a kind person wanted to give you some money. Would you rather have $75 in three days or $115 in 3 months?“. The youth indicated one of these two options or a third can’t decide option.
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 1
Summary Score(s): No
Measurement Waves Administered: Baseline
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: None
References: Wulfert, E., Block, J. A., Santa Ana, E., Rodriguez, M. L., & Colsman, M. (2002). Delay of gratification: impulsive choices and problem behaviors in early and late adolescence. Journal of personality, 70(4), 533–552. Find here
Anokhin, A. P., Golosheykin, S., Grant, J. D., & Heath, A. C. (2011). Heritability of delay discounting in adolescence: a longitudinal twin study. Behavior genetics, 41(2), 175–183. Find here
Little Man Task
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_lmt
Measure Description: The Little Man Task evaluates visuospatial processing flexibility and attention. Participants view pictures of a figure (little man) presented in different orientations and holding a suitcase and must use mental rotation skills to assess which hand (left or right) is holding the suitcase. Accuracy and latency scores are provided for each trial.
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 54
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: Baseline; 2-year follow-up; 4-year follow-up.
Modifications since initial administration: The Little Man Task used in the baseline assessment was administered using a customized program designed by ABCD, whereas the 2-year and 4-year follow-up assessments used a task presented in the Inquisit system from Millisecond. We recommend users consider this difference in analyses.
Notes and special considerations: None
References: Acker, W. (1982). “A computerized approach to psychological screening—The Bexley-Maudsley Automated Psychological Screening and The Bexley-Maudsley Category Sorting Test.” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 17(3): 361-369. Find here
Nixon, S. J., Prather, R. A., & Lewis, B. (2014). Sex differences in alcohol-related neurobehavioral consequences. In Edith V. Sullivan and Adolf Pfefferbaum (Eds.), Alcohol and the nervous system (Handbook of clinical neurology, 3rd series (Vol. 125)). Oxford, United Kingdom, Elsevier, pp. 253-272. Find here
The Pearson Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT)
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_ravlt
Measure Description: The Pearson Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT)
The Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) assesses verbal learning and memory. The task is administered according to standard instructions using a 15-item word list; there are five learning trials (Trials I-V), a distractor trial (List B), measures of immediate recall (Trial VI) and 30-minute delayed recall (Trial VII); for all trials, the total correct is recorded together with the number of perseverations and intrusions.
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 27
Measurement Waves Administered: Baseline; 2-year follow-up
Modifications since initial administration: An alternate form of the RAVLT was used in the 2-year follow-up.
Notes and special considerations: None
References: Strauss, E., Sherman, E.M.S., & Spreen, O. (2006) A compendium of neuropsychological tests. Oxford University Press. New York, New York. Third Edition. FInd here
Lezak, M.D., Howieson, D.B., Bigler, E.D., & Tranel, D. (2012) Neuropsychological assessment. 5th Edition. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. Find here
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (5th Ed.) - Matrix Reasoning [Youth]
Measure Description: WISC-V Matrix Reasoning Test were administered using the Pearson Q-Interactive platform.
Matrix Reasoning Task – Measures fluid intelligence and visuospatial reasoning. The task is from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V (WISC-V). Total raw scores, scaled scores (mean = 10, SD = 3), and scores for each item are available.
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 36
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: Baseline
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: None
References: Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fifth Edition Manual. San Antonio,TX, Pearson. Find here
Daniel, M.H., Wahlstrom, D. & Zhang, O. (2014) Equivalence of Q-interactive® and Paper Administrations of Cognitive Tasks: WISC®–V: Q-Interactive Technical Report. Find here
Delay Discounting Scores
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_ddis
Measure Description: The participant makes several choices between a hypothetical small-immediate reward or a standard hypothetical $100 future reward at different time points (6h, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3-month, 1 year, and 5 years). Each block of choices features the same delay to the larger reward and the immediate reward is titrated after each choice until both the smaller-sooner reward and the delayed-$100 reward have equal subjective value to the participant. The summary results file indicates the “indifference point” (the small-immediate amount deemed to have the same subjective value as the $100 delayed reward) at each of the seven delay intervals. When plotted, the area under the curve formed by these indifference points is frequently used to quantify severity of discounting of delayed rewards.
Orderly delay-discounting task behavior is evidenced by a revealed preference pattern wherein subjective value (SV) indifference points progressively DECLINE with each increasing delay to the hypothetical reward payout. Per the quality control metrics suggested by Johnson and Bickel (2008) Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, Vol. 16, No. 3, 264–274, JBPass1 “yes” (pass) refers to whether the valuation of the standard reward with delay follows an orderly decline, such that neither of the two following criterion were met: (1) if any indifference point (starting with the second delay) was greater than the preceding indifference point by a magnitude greater than 20% of the larger later reward (here, by $20 or more); or (2) the last (5-yr) indifference point was not less than the first (6 hour) indifference point by at least a magnitude equal to 10% of the larger later reward (here, by $10 or more).
“values.JBPass1_NumberViolations” is the tally of delay intervals (blocks) wherein the participant’s revealed subjective value indifference point was $20 or more GREATER than the indifference point of the next-sooner delay. This value will be “0” for a session wherein the participant showed an orderly decrease (or at least not an increase) in subjective value from each delay to the next-longer delay. The titrating format of the ABCD delay discounting task may increase the likelihood of one or more delay blocks showing an inconsistent pattern, even from an engaged participant. A result that revealed 1 or 2 violations, especially at the later/longer delay blocks (e.g. 5 years) might not substantially affect the overall area-under-curve of subjective value with delay, such that data may still be useable and reflect the participant’s general preferences about waiting to get larger rewards. Therefore, the ABCD Consortium Neurocognition Workgroup recommends not excluding most cases where JBPass 1 is “no”. Several violations of JBpass Criterion 1 (cf values.JBPass1_NumberViolations variable), however, suggests that the participant was responding somewhat randomly and inconsistently. The ABCD consortium Neurocognition Workgroup recommends caution in using data from cases wherein “values.JBPass1_NumberViolations” is greater than 1 or 2.
Per Johnson and Bickel (2008), values.Consistent_per_JBcriterion2 (yes,no) essentially indicates whether or not the participant discounted delayed rewards at all. JBPass 2 “yes” means that the youth discounted the standard reward (here $100) by at least 10% at the maximum delay interval presented in the task (here 5 years). Assuming a participant was attentive and engaged, a “no” value would suggest that delay had no effect on how the participant valued future rewards. Alternatively, the participant may have adopted a facile, unreflective strategy to respond for the larger reward amount in every trial. Many investigators simply exclude data from participants who do not discount at all. The ABCD consortium. The Neurocognition Workgroup recommends caution using data from cases wherein “values.Consistent_per_JBcriterion2” is not “yes.”
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 26
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: 1-year follow-up; 3-year follow-up.
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: Users should consider restricting data analysis to participants for whom “values.Consistent per_JBcriterion1” and “values.Consistent per_JBcriterion2” are both “yes.”
Reference: Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2008). An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data. Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 16(3), 264–274. Find here
Emotional Stroop Task
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_est
Measure Description: The emotional Stroop task (Stroop, 1935) measures cognitive control under conditions of emotional salience (see Başgöze et al., 2015; Banich et al., 2019). The task-relevant dimension is an emotional word that participants categorized as either a “good” feeling (happy, joyful) or a “bad” feeling (angry, upset). The task-irrelevant dimension is an image, which is of a teenager’s face with either a happy or an angry facial expression. Trials are of two types. On congruent trials, the word and facial emotion are of the same valence (e.g. a happy face paired with word “joyful”). The location of the word varies from trial-to-trial, presented either on the top of the image or at the bottom. On incongruent trials, the word and facial expression are of different valence (e.g., a happy face paired with word “angry”). Participants work through 2 test blocks: one block consists of 50% congruent and 50% incongruent trials; the other consists of 25% incongruent trials and 75% congruent trials. The composition of the former type of block helps individuals keep the task set in mind more so than the latter (Kane & Engle, 2003). The 25% incongruent/75% congruent block is always administered first, followed by the 50% incongruent/50% congruent block. Accuracy and response times for congruent versus incongruent trials for the total task and within each emotion subtype (happy/joyful; angry/upset) are calculated. Relative difficulties with cognitive control are indexed by lower accuracy rates and longer reaction times for incongruent relative to congruent trials.
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 48
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: 1-year follow-up; 3-year follow-up.
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: There may be aberrant data in the task with reaction times (RTs). We recommend that researchers should use cut-offs to omit RTs < 200 ms and > 2000 ms. The task’s upper limit for issuing a response was 2000ms.
References: Başgöze, Z., Gönül, A. S., Baskak, B., & Gökçay, D. (2015). Valence-based Word-Face Stroop task reveals differential emotional interference in patients with major depression. Psychiatry research, 229(3), 960–967. Find here
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 132(1), 47–70. Find here
Stroop, J.R., 1935. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J. Exp. Psychol. 18 (6), 643–662. Find here
Game of Dice Task
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_gdt
Measure Description: The Game of Dice Task (GDT; Brand et al., 2005) assesses decision-making under conditions of specified risk and has been successfully used with adolescent samples (Drechsler, Rizzo, & Steinhausen, 2008; Duperrouzel et al., 2019; Ross, Graziano, Pacheco-Colón, Coxe, & Gonzalez, 2016). Risk taking is assessed by having participants attempt to predict the outcome of a dice roll by choosing among different options that vary on their outcome probability and pay-off across 18 trials. Specific rules and probabilities for monetary gains and losses are evident throughout the task (Brand et al., 2005). On each trial, participants predict the outcome of a die roll by choosing from four different options (e.g., one number vs. multiple numbers). Options with more numbers (i.e. higher probability of winning) are associated with a lesser reward compared to those with one or two possible numbers (i.e. lower probability of winning). The two options with the lowest probability of winning are considered ‘risky choices.’ The total number of risky choices is often used to quantify performance.
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 15
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: 2-year follow-up; 4-year follow-up.
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: None
Reference:s Brand, M., Fujiwara, E., Borsutzky, S., Kalbe, E., Kessler, J., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2005). Decision-making deficits of Korsakoff patients in a new gambling task with explicit rules: associations with executive functions. Neuropsychology, 19(3), 267–277. Find here
Drechsler, R., Rizzo, P., & Steinhausen, H. C. (2008). Decision-making on an explicit risk-taking task in preadolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 115(2), 201–209. Find here
Duperrouzel, J. C., Hawes, S. W., Lopez-Quintero, C., Pacheco-Colón, I., Coxe, S., Hayes, T., & Gonzalez, R. (2019). Adolescent cannabis use and its associations with decision-making and episodic memory: Preliminary results from a longitudinal study. Neuropsychology, 33(5), 701–710. Find here
Ross, J. M., Graziano, P., Pacheco-Colón, I., Coxe, S., & Gonzalez, R. (2016). Decision-Making Does not Moderate the Association between Cannabis Use and Body Mass Index among Adolescent Cannabis Users. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 22(9), 944–949. Find here
Stanford Mental Arithmetic Response Time Evaluation (SMARTE)
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_smarte
Measure Description: The Stanford Mental Arithmetic Response Time Evaluation (SMARTE) is a youth measure that assesses math fluency and single- and double-digit arithmetic operations via an iPad or smartphone app. Multiple accuracy and reaction time summary scores are calculated. See Starkey & McCandliss BD (2014).
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 55
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: 3-year follow-up
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: None
Reference: Starkey, G. S., & McCandliss, B. D. (2014). The emergence of “groupitizing” in children’s numerical cognition. Journal of experimental child psychology, 126, 120–137. Find here
Behavioral Indicator of Resiliency to Distress Task (BIRD)
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_bird
Measure Description: The Behavioral Indicator of Resiliency to Distress (BIRD) task measures a participant’s ability to persist despite distress. The paradigm shows a bird in a cage with 10 number boxes arranged in a circle around it; a green dot moves at random from box to box. The participant must reach the green dot before it moves or else an unpleasant sound is delivered. In level 1 (2 minutes), the participant completes an adaptive training level to estimate RTs; in level 2 (3 minutes) the dot moves faster than the participant’s RT at random (distress component); in level 3 (5 minutes) the participant is allowed to quit at any time (with longer level 3 durations indicating higher tolerance for distress; a binary quit [1: high distress] and no quit [0: low distress] variable is also computed); pre- and post-task affective scales are given prior to the task and after level 2.
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 22
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: 4-year follow-up
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: None
Reference: Lejuez, C. W., Kahler, C. W., & Brown, R. A. (2003). A modified computer version of the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT) as a laboratory-based stressor. The Behavior Therapist, 26(4), 290–293. Find here
Feldner, M. T., Leen-Feldner, E. W., Zvolensky, M. J., & Lejuez, C. W. (2006). Examining the association between rumination, negative affectivity, and negative affect induced by a paced auditory serial addition task. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 37(3), 171–187. Find here
Millisecond Flanker Task
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_flkr
Measure Description: This task measures attention, cognitive control, executive function, and inhibition of automatic response similarly to the NIH Toolbox Flanker task of the NIH Toolbox (Cognition) battery. Because the NIH Toolbox version of the Flanker could not be administered remotely, this task was designed to mimic the NIH Toolbox Flanker task as closely as possible.
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 29
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: 2-year follow-up (partial); 4-year follow-up
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: We recommend that users carefully consider the administration differences between the NIH Toolbox Flanker task and the Millisecond Flanker task in their analyses.
Reference: see NIH Toolbox (Cognition)
Neurocognition Assessment Administration
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_adm
Measure Description: Information regarding your neurocognition in-person, remote, and hybrid visit type and device status information.
ABCD Classification: Administration
Number of Variables: 10
Summary Score(s): No
Measurement Waves Administered: Annually since Baseline
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: None
Reference: None
Snellen Visual Screener
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_svs
Measure Description: This is a vision screening measure. The vision score is the last line correctly read on the Snellen chart without errors, with both eyes together, and using corrective lenses if needed.
ABCD Classification: Administrative
Number of Variables: 4
Summary Score(s): No
Measurement Waves Administered: Baseline; 2-year follow-up; 4-year follow-up
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: We suggest that users of neurocognitive data first examine the participants’ vision using the snellen_va_y variable. It is possible that poor vision could influence task performance.
Reference: Snellen, H. (1862). Optotypi ad visum determinandum (letterproeven tot bepaling der gezichtsscherpte; probebuchstaben zur bestimmung der sehschaerfe). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Weyers.
Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Short Form)
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_ehis
Measure Description: A measure of handedness. In this short form, participants complete four self-report items to yield an estimate of handedness (right, mixed, left). The short form was validated by confirmatory factor analysis. See Veale (2014).
ABCD Classification: Administrative
Number of Variables: 6
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: Baseline; 4-year follow-up
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: None
References: Oldfield R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. Find here
Veale J. F. (2014). Edinburgh Handedness Inventory - Short Form: a revised version based on confirmatory factor analysis. Laterality, 19(2), 164–177. Find here
ABCD Little Man Task Raw Data
Data Description:
The description of the Little Man Task (LMT) is here (Little Man Task). To download these raw data, follow the instructions at the NDA ABCD page.
Details of data in raw data file
| COLUMN NAME | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
| task | Behavioral task completed |
| subject | Subject ID how it’s defined in ABCD |
| eventname | The event name for which the data was collected |
| site | Data collection site ID |
| build | The specific Inquisit version used |
| computer_platform | Operating system |
| date | The date the script was run |
| time | The time the script was run |
| lmt_blocknum | 3 blocks of LMT task: 1 = instructions; 2 = practice; 3 = test trials |
| lmt_blockcode | Similar to lmt_trialcode, those designated “test” are the test trials. Can also cross reference with lmt_values_stim to determine type of test trial |
| lmt_trialcode | Designates what type of trial was presented (see lmt_trialnum). “littleManPresentation” designates the test trials, otherwise they are practice/instructional trials |
| lmt_trialnum | “Trial” number for each step/stimulus presentation in the task |
| lmt_values_stim | Numerical values for which image was displayed (practice trials are ex1.png, ex2.png, etc.; test trials are 1.png, 2.png, etc.) |
| lmt_values_correctans | This is the “correct answer” for each test trial. For test trials 0 = leftButton; 1 = rightButton.” |
| lmt_response | In response to the stimulus: rightButton = right button was pressed; leftButton = left button was pressed; missing/0 = no response; HomeButton = home base/button was pressed |
| lmt_correct | 0 = FALSE (not correct); 1 = TRUE (correct) |
| lmt_latency | Latency in milliseconds – for test trials this is time from presentation of stimulus to response |
NOTE: LMT 2-year follow-up assessments were administered using a different vendor than at Baseline. When applicable and available, LMT Baseline raw data were therefore reformatted and coded to match LMT the 2-year follow-up data format. Any wholly missing variables for LMT Baseline were not produced at that event and are left blank.
ABCD Delay Discounting Task Raw Data
Description of cognitive task
The description of the Delayed Discounting Task is here. To download these raw data, follow the instructions at the NDA ABCD page.
Details of data in raw data files
| COLUMN NAME | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
| task | Behavioral task completed |
| subject | Subject ID how it’s defined in ABCD |
| eventname | The event name for which the data was collected |
| site | Data collection site ID |
| build | The specific Inquisit version used |
| computer_platform | Operating system |
| date | The date the script was run |
| time | The time the script was run |
| trial | Trial number |
| ddis_trialtype | Trial type (i.e., “practice” trials are incorporated to introduce participants to the task, all remaining trials are “test” trials) |
| ddis_countdelays | Block number (“Practice” trials are block 0, “Test” trials are blocks 1-7) |
| ddis_delays_ordinalrank | Ordinal ranking of the delays to the larger reward (“6 hours from now” = 1, “1 day” = 2, “1 week” = 3, “1 month” = 4, “3 months” = 5, “1 year” = 6, “5 years” = 7) |
| ddis_delay | Delay to the larger reward, as presented to participants |
| ddis_delay_indays | Delay to the larger reward, converted to total number of days to the larger reward |
| ddis_delayedreward_amount | Amount of the delayed reward ($) for that choice |
| ddis_delayedreward_location | Location on the computer screen of the delayed reward relative to the immediate reward (i.e., “left” side or “right” side) |
| ddis_choicelatency_ms | Latency to make each choice (trials in which latency equaled 0 were home-base trials) |
| ddis_choice | Choice of the immediate reward (0) or delayed reward (1). On home-base trials, the choice is automatically set to 0. |
| ddis_indifferencepoint | Indifference point for each trial. The indifference point on Trial 13 of each block represents the final indifference point for that block. |
ABCD Emotional Stroop Task Raw Data
Description of cognitive task
The description of the Emotional Stroop Task is here. To download these raw data, follow the instructions at the NDA ABCD page.
Details of data in raw data files
| COLUMN NAME | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
| task | Behavioral task completed |
| subject | Subject ID how it’s defined in ABCD |
| eventname | The event name for which the data was collected |
| site | Data collection site ID |
| build | The specific Inquisit version used |
| computer_platform | Operating system |
| date | The date the script was run |
| time | The time the script was run |
| values.keyAssignment | Emotional valence mapped to left key (positive or negative) |
| blockcode | Practice1 = first block of practice; repeatPractice=instruction screen for additional practice block; practice 2= second block of practice; testMC – test block with mostly congruent trials (75/25); test equal – test block with half congruent and half incongruent trials (50/50) |
| blocknum | The number of the present block (not consecutive in some cases as as instructions (not included) are coded as blocks as well).trialnum |
| values.word_y | Vertical coordinate of current word (in % of frame) |
| values.congruence | 1= congruent 2= incongruent (emotion of word and face) |
| values.faceemotion | “happy” or “angry” |
| values.selectStim | Item number of selected stimulus |
| stimulusitem2 | The presented face stimulus (file number) |
| stimulusitem3 | The presented word stimulus |
| values.correctButton | The correct response to the trial (i.e., emotional valence of the word) |
| response | Actual participant response (0=missing) |
| correct | 0=incorrect 1= correct |
| latency | Reaction time |
| List.accuracymean | Cumulative accuracy for the block through that trial (i.e., proportion correct for a given block) |
ABCD Game of Dice Task Raw Data
Description of cognitive task
The description of the Game of Dice Task is here. To download these raw data, follow the instructions at the NDA ABCD page.
Details of data in raw data files
| COLUMN NAME | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
| task | Behavioral task completed |
| subject | Subject ID how it’s defined in lab/project |
| eventname | The event name for which the data was collected |
| site | Data collection site ID |
| build | The specific Inquisit version used |
| date | Date script was run |
| time | Time script was run |
| gdt_parameters_version | 1 = original version with feedback (default) |
| gdt_blocknum | The number of the current block (Inquisit variable) |
| gdt_blockcode | The name of the current block (Inquisit variable) |
| gdt_values_phase | Practice = practice trials; test = trials with responses that contribute to outcome scoresgdt_values_currentround |
| gdt_trialcode | The name of the currently recorded trial (Inquisit variable) |
| gdt_latency | Response latency in ms |
| gdt_values_chosen | The selected dice faces participant is betting on (ex: “1”, “12”, “123”, “1234”) |
| gdt_values_throw | The dice face thrown |
| gdt_values_row | Participant’s betting choice: For “singles” (“1”, “2”, etc.) |
| 1 = singles; 2 = doubles; 3 = triples; 4 = quadruples | |
| gdt_values_currentbet | The amount of money currently bet based on betting choice |
| gdt_values_gain | Amount of money won or lost in the current round |
| gdt_values_account_balance | Amount participant owns |
| gdt_values_single | counts how many times participant has bet on 1 specific dice face |
| gdt_values_double | counts how many times participant has bet on 2 possible dice faces |
| gdt_values_triple | counts how many times participant has bet on 3 possible dice faces |
| gdt_values_quadruple | counts how many times participant has bet on 4 possible dice faces |
| gdt_values_safe | counts how many times participants selected a safe bet (bets on 3 or 4 dice faces) |
| gdt_values_risky | counts how many times participants selected a risky bet (bets on 1 or 2 dice faces) |
| gdt_expressions_net_score | number of safe bets minus number of risky bets |
| gdt_values_wins | adds the number of winning bets |
| gdt_values_losses | adds the number of losing bets |
ABCD NIH Toolbox® Cognition Measures Raw Data
The NIH Toolbox Cognition measures raw data are comprised of a series of .csv (comma separated values) files. There is a single format used for all measures. Definitions for the columns of these spreadsheets can be found here.
Descriptions of Scoring Processes for the Cognitive Test
Please refer to the NIH Toolbox Technical Manuals here. Detailed scoring processes can also be found in the Toolbox_Scoring_and_Interpretation_Guide_for_iPad_v1.7 here.
NIH Toolbox Picture Vocabulary Test (Language)
Scoring Process: Item Response Theory (IRT) is used to score the Picture Vocabulary Test. A score known as a theta score is calculated for each participant; it represents the relative overall ability or performance of the participant. A theta score is very similar to a z-score, which is a statistic with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.
NIH Toolbox Oral Reading Recognition Test (Language)
Scoring Process: IRT is used to score the Oral Reading Recognition Test. A theta score is calculated for each participant, representing the overall reading ability or performance of the participant. A theta score is similar to a z-score, which is a statistic with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.
NIH Toolbox Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test (Executive Function & Attention)
Scoring Process: Scoring is based on a combination of accuracy and reaction time and is identical for both the Flanker and DCCS measures (described below). A 2-vector scoring method is employed that uses accuracy and reaction time, where each of these “vectors” ranges in value between 0 and 5, and the computed score, combining each vector score, ranges in value from 0-10. For any given individual, accuracy is considered first. If accuracy levels for the participant are less than or equal to 80%, the final “total” computed score is equal to the accuracy score. If accuracy levels for the participant reach more than 80%, the reaction time score and accuracy score are combined.
NIH Toolbox Dimensional Change Card Sort Test (DCCS) (Executive Function)
Scoring Process: Scoring is based on a combination of accuracy and reaction time. A 2-vector scoring method is employed that uses accuracy and reaction time, where each of these “vectors” ranges in value between 0 and 5, and the computed score, combining each vector score, ranges in value from 0-10. For any given individual, accuracy is considered first. If accuracy levels for the participant are less than or equal to 80%, the final “total” computed score is equal to the accuracy score. If accuracy levels for the participant reach more than 80%, the reaction time score and accuracy score are combined.
NIH Toolbox Picture Sequence Memory Test (Episodic Memory)
Scoring Process: The Picture Sequence Memory Test is scored using IRT methodology. The number of adjacent pairs placed correctly for each of trials 1 and 2 is converted to a theta score, which provides a representation of the given participant’s estimated ability in this episodic memory task. All normative standard scores are provided.
NIH Toolbox List Sorting Working Memory Test (Working Memory)
Scoring process: List Sorting is scored by summing the total number of items correctly recalled and sequenced on 1-List and 2-List, which can range from 0-26. This score is then converted to the nationally normed standard scores.
NIH Toolbox Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test (Processing Speed)
Scoring process: List Sorting is scored by summing the total number of items correctly recalled and sequenced on 1-List and 2-List, which can range from 0-26. This score is then converted to the nationally normed standard scores. This task is included in the calculation of the Fluid Composite Score. The participant’s raw score is the number of items answered correctly in 85 seconds of response time, with a range of 0-130. This score is then converted to the NIH Toolbox normative standard scores.
Stanford Mental Arithmetic Response Time Evaluation (SMARTE) Raw Data
The description of the Stanford Mental Arithmetic Response Time Evaluation (SMARTE) is here. Each participant has three files for each event corresponding to the Enumeration, Fluency, and Recall tasks. To download these raw data, follow the instructions at the NDA ABCD page.
Description of data in raw data file
Enumeration Raw Data Variable Descriptions
| Variable Name | Description |
|---|---|
| task | Experiment name |
| enumer_scriptlastupdate | Script update date |
| computer.os | Computer/Mobile OS name |
| computer.osmajorversion | Computer/Mobile major software version |
| computer.osminorversion | Computer/Mobile minor software version |
| screenWidth_inmm | Screen width in mm |
| screenHeight_inmm | Screen height in mm |
| test_setting | Remote/In-person |
| subject | Participant ID |
| eventname | ABCD testing event (wave) name |
| site | Site ID |
| enumer_build | Script version |
| enumer_date | Date of testing |
| enumer_time | Time of testing |
| enumer_blockcode | Test block ID |
| enumer_blocknum | Test block number |
| enumer_trialnum | Test trial number |
| enumer_trialcode | Test trial description |
| enumer_practiceBlockCount | Practice or test trial (0 = Neither, 1 = Practice, 2 = Test) |
| enumer_countPracticeTrials | Trial code (0 = Introduction, 1 = Practice, 2 = Test) |
| enumer_countTrials | Test trial number |
| enumer_TotalTestTrialCount | Running trial counter |
| enumer_RandomOrderBlock | Randomization code (0 = Practice, 1 & 2 = Test trials) |
| enumer_condition | Stimulus item description |
| enumer_SetSize | Trial dot number |
| enumer_Structure | Dot pattern description |
| enumer_NumberOfSubgroups | Number of dot groups |
| enumer_SubgroupMax | Maximum size of dot group set |
| enumer_CounterbalanceBlock | Counterbalance code (0 = No, 1 = Yes) |
| enumer_Item | Item code |
| enumer_ExpDuration | Exposure duration (multiply by 100) |
| enumer_DotSize | Size of dots |
| enumer_TotalArea | Total area of display |
| enumer_DotArea | Total area occupied by dots |
| enumer_ConvexHull | Numerical summary of the minimum convex set enclosing all dots |
| enumer_Occupancy | Numerical description of topological properties of dots |
| enumer_Filename | Description of trial |
| enumer_trialDeadline | Time allowed for response |
| enumer_currentProblemIndex | Numeric description of trial |
| enumer_Problem | Description of trial |
| enumer_correctSolution | Value of correct decision |
| enumer_proposedSolution | Solution presented during trial |
| enumer_correct | Correct response code (0 = Incorrect, 1 = Correct) |
| enumer_problemRT | Reaction time for trial |
| enumer_homeButtonRT | Reaction time to return to home button |
| enumer_response | Response description |
| enumer_latency | Latency to leave home button |
| enumer_remainingTrialDuration | Time remaining relative to maximum allowed |
| enumer_elapsedtime | Running time clock of task (ms) |
| enumer_countTimeOut | Trial completed within time allowed (0 = Yes, 1 = No) |
Fluency Raw Data Variable Descriptions
| Variable Name | Description |
|---|---|
| task | Experiment name |
| fluency_scriptlastupdate | Script update date |
| computer.os | Computer/Mobile OS name |
| computer.osmajorversion | Computer/Mobile major software version |
| computer.osminorversion | Computer/Mobile minor software version |
| screenWidth_inmm | Screen width in mm |
| screenHeight_inmm | Screen height in mm |
| test_setting | Remote/In-person |
| subject | Participant ID |
| eventname | ABCD testing event (wave) name |
| site | Site ID |
| fluency_build | Script version |
| fluency_date | Date of testing |
| fluency_time | Time of testing |
| fluency_blockcode | Test block ID |
| fluency_blocknum | Test block number |
| fluency_trialnum | Test trial number |
| fluency_trialcode | Test trial description |
| fluency_phase | Test phase description |
| fluency_practiceBlockCount | Practice or test trial (0 = Neither, 1 = Practice, 2 = Test) |
| fluency_countPracticeTrials | Trial code (0 = Introduction, 1 = Practice, 2 = Test) |
| fluency_countTrials | Test trial number |
| fluency_TotalTestTrialCount | Running trial counter |
| fluency_counterBalanceBlock | Counterbalance code |
| fluency_RandomOrderBlock | Random order code |
| fluency_item | Stimulus item number code |
| fluency_condition | Stimulus item number description |
| fluency_difficulty | Stimulus difficulty code (0 = low; 1 = medium; 2 = difficult) |
| fluency_presentedAnswer | Blank in the fluency task |
| fluency_firstOperand | First stimulus description |
| fluency_secondOperand | Second stimulus description |
| fluency_operation | Arithmetic operation to perform on stimuli |
| fluency_decadeAns | Blank in fluency task |
| fluency_singleAns | Correct answer |
| fluency_descriptor | Description of trial operand |
| fluency_trialDeadline | Time limit for trial |
| fluency_currentProblemIndex | Index number of current problem/trial |
| fluency_spatialPresentation | Spatial distribution code |
| fluency_mathProblem | Description of trial math problem |
| fluency_correctSolution | Description of correct answer |
| fluency_proposedSolution | Description of proposed solution |
| fluency_correct | Code for accuracy of proposed solution (0 = False, 1 = True) |
| fluency_problemRT | Reaction time for trial |
| fluency_homeButtonRT | Reaction time to return to home button |
| fluency_response | Description of participant response |
| fluency_latency | Response latency |
| fluency_elapsedtime | Elapsed time since beginning of experiment |
| fluency_countTimeOut | Item time out (0 = No, 1 = Yes) |
Recall Raw Data Variable Data Descriptions
| Variable Name | Description |
|---|---|
| task | Experiment name |
| recall_scriptlastupdate | Script update date |
| computer.os | Computer/Mobile OS name |
| computer.osmajorversion | Computer/Mobile major software version |
| computer.osminorversion | Computer/Mobile minor software version |
| screenWidth_inmm | Screen width in mm |
| screenHeight_inmm | Screen height in mm |
| test_setting | Remote/In-person |
| subject | Participant ID |
| eventname | ABCD testing event (wave) name |
| site | Site ID |
| recall_build | Script version |
| recall_date | Date of testing |
| recall_time | Time of testing |
| recall_blockcode | Test block ID |
| recall_blocknum | Test block number |
| recall_trialnum | Test trial number |
| recall_trialcode | Test trial description |
| recall_phase | Test phase description |
| recall_countTrials | Test trial number |
| recall_TotalTestTrialCount | Running trial counter |
| recall_counterBalanceBlock | Counterbalance code |
| recall_RandomOrderBlock | Random order code |
| recall_item | Stimulus item number code |
| recall_condition | Stimulus item number description |
| recall_difficulty | Stimulus difficulty code (0 = low; 1 = medium; 2 = difficult) |
| recall_presentedAnswer | Blank in the fluency task |
| recall_firstOperand | First stimulus description |
| recall_secondOperand | Second stimulus description |
| recall_operation | Arithmetic operation to perform on stimuli |
| recall_decadeAns | Blank in fluency task |
| recall_singleAns | Correct answer |
| recall_descriptor | Description of trial operand |
| recall_trialDeadline | Time limit for trial |
| recall_currentProblemIndex | Index number of current problem/trial |
| recall_spatialPresentation | Spatial distribution code |
| recall_mathProblem | Description of trial math problem |
| recall_correctSolution | Description of correct answer |
| recall_proposedSolution | Description of proposed solution |
| recall_correct | Code for accuracy of proposed solution (0 = False, 1 = True) |
| recall_problemRT | Reaction time for trial |
| recall_homeButtonRT | Reaction time to return to home button |
| recall_response | Description of participant response |
| recall_latency | Response latency |
| recall_elapsedtime | Elapsed time since beginning of experiment |
| recall_countTimeOuts | Item time out (0 = No, 1 = Yes) |
| recall_anxiety | Self-reported anxiety |
Behavioral Indicator of Resiliency to Distress Task (BIRD) Raw Data
The description of the Behavioral Indicator of Resiliency to Distress Task (BIRD) is here. To download these raw data, follow the instructions at the NDA ABCD page.
Description of data in raw data file
| Variable Name | Description |
|---|---|
| scriptlastupdate | Date script last updated |
| build | Build version |
| computer.platform | Mobile device description |
| computer.os | Device software |
| computer.osmajorversion | Device software version |
| computer.osminorversion | Device software minor version |
| screenWidth_inmm | Width of screen (mm) |
| screenHeight_inmm | Height of screen (mm) |
| test_setting | Remote/In-person |
| date | Test date |
| time | Test time |
| subject | Randomized participant ID & event description |
| group | Group ID |
| session | Session number |
| blockcode | Description of trial level |
| blocknum | Code corresponding to blockcode |
| trialcode | Description of trail |
| trialnum | Trial number |
| counttrials | Running total of trials |
| dotposition | Description of trial dot location |
| stimulusitem1 | Description of trial instructions |
| response | Participant response |
| correct | Accuracy of participant response (0 = Incorrect, 1 = Correct) |
| latency | Latency of response (ms) |
| trialdotlatency | Trial duration |
| score | Running tally of correct responses |
Millisecond Flanker Task Raw Data
Description of cognitive task
The description of the Millisecond Flanker Task is here. To download these raw data, follow the instructions at the NDA ABCD page.
Details of data in raw data files
| Variable Name | Description |
|---|---|
| build | Version of task |
| computer.platform | Device used |
| date | Date of testing |
| time | Time of testing |
| subject | Randomized participant ID and ABCD event (wave) |
| group | Group assignment |
| sessionid | Session number |
| blockcode | Description of trial block |
| blocknum | Code number for blockcode |
| trialcode | Description of trial |
| trialnum | Trial number (see trailcount for more interpretable trial number) |
| practice | Practice trial? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) |
| blockcount | Non-practice block counted in summary scores (0 = No, 1 = Yes) |
| countPracticeBlocks | Definition of all task blocks (0 = No, 1 = Yes) |
| trialcount | Running trial number count |
| fixationDuration | Duration of fixation (ms) |
| congruence | Trial congruence (0 = non-trial, 1 = congruent, 2 = non-congruent) |
| selecttarget | Location of target (1 = Right, 2 = Left) |
| selectflanker | Direction of flanker (1 = Right, 2 = Left) |
| response | Button response |
| correct | Response accuracy (0 = Incorrect/Non-trial, 1 = Correct) |
| latency | Response latency (ms) |
| homeButton_RT | Latency leaving home button |
| list.ACC_practice.mean | Trials included in accuracy mean, including practice (0 = No, 1 = Yes) |
| practicePass | Task trials included in accuracy mean (0 = No, 1 = Yes) |
Parent Instruments
Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_p_bdef
Measure Description: This measure is the short form of the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale for Children and Adolescents. A parent reports on several different dimensions of their child or adolescent’s day-to-day executive functioning (EF), such as organization, acting without thinking, clarity of expression, and procrastination that are predictive of future impairments in psychosocial functioning. See Barkley (2012). Both an EF Summary Score (sum of all 20 item responses) and an EF Symptom Count (tally of responses of 3 or 4 across all items) are calculated for cases with either no missing item responses or only one missing item response (i.e. refuse to answer code “777”).
ABCD Classification: Questionnaire
Number of Variables: 18
Summary Score(s): No
Measurement Waves Administered: 3-year follow-up
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: None
Reference: Barkley RA (2012). Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale–Children and Adolescents (BDEFS-CA). New York: Guilford. Find here
O’Brien, A. M., Kivisto, L. R., Deasley, S., & Casey, J. E. (2021). Executive Functioning Rating Scale as a Screening Tool for ADHD: Independent Validation of the BDEFS-CA. Journal of attention disorders, 25(7), 965–977. Find here
Social Influence Task
Release 5.0 Data Table: nc_y_sit
Measure Description: The Social Influence Task (SIT) assesses risk perception and propensity for risk taking, as well as susceptibility to perceived peer influence. Over the course of 40 trials, participants are presented with a variety of risky scenarios. Participants are asked to rate an activity’s risk by moving a slider bar between “very LOW risk” (left) and “very HIGH risk” (right). After submitting an initial rating, participants are shown a risk rating of the same activity that is seemingly provided by a group of peers. This peer rating condition is either 4 points lower (‘-4’ condition), 2 points lower (‘-2’ condition), 2 points higher (‘+2’ condition) or 4 points higher (‘+4’ condition) than the participant’s initial rating. Participants are asked to rate the riskiness of the scenario again. For both the initial and final rating trials, participants have a time limit of 4500 ms to provide their rating.
The task is designed to try to ensure ~25% of trials (~10 trials) are in each of the peer rating conditions. To do this, the task script restricts random sampling to only those conditions that can be run given the participant’s initial ratings (e.g., if a participant selected a rating of 1.8, condition -4 and condition -2 cannot be run as both of those conditions would result in a peer rating < 0). If none of the unselected peer conditions can be run due to rating constraints, yet 10 trials have already been in run in all the realistic peer conditions, the script uses the ‘switch sign’ method; it (randomly) selects from the unselected peer conditions and then switches the sign (e.g., selected peer condition -4 will be run as peer condition +4 and vice versa). The script tracks how many such switches had to be made.
ABCD Classification: Task
Number of Variables: 29
Summary Score(s): Yes
Measurement Waves Administered: 2-year follow-up
Modifications since initial administration: None
Notes and special considerations: None
Reference: Knoll, L. J., Leung, J. T., Foulkes, L., & Blakemore, S. J. (2017). Age-related differences in social influence on risk perception depend on the direction of influence. Journal of adolescence, 60, 53–63. Find here