Decision Making
Doors Task
Also called: doors guessing task, doors gambling task, reward positivity task, simple gambling task
Measure how wins and losses change behavior: participants pick one of two doors and win or lose points on a fixed schedule, scored from pick times and door changes after each outcome.
7-9 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 42
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 7
What it measures
Measures how wins and losses change what people do next. In each round participants pick one of two doors and win or lose points, on a schedule set in advance. The main score is how much faster or slower doors are picked after a loss than after a win, over 3 blocks of 20 rounds.
Constructs
- Reward responsiveness
- Response to wins and losses
- Post-loss speeding
- Choice switching
Research uses
- Reward processing research, including depression and anhedonia
- Gambling and impulsivity research
- Within-study comparison of responses to wins and losses
How the paradigm works
The doors task is the guessing game of the reward positivity studies: in each round people pick one of two doors and then see whether they won or lost money (Foti and Hajcak, 2009; Proudfit, 2015). In those studies the brain's response to wins compared with losses, the reward positivity, was smaller in people with more depressive symptoms and in people at risk of depression (Proudfit, 2015). This version records no brain activity. It scores behavior: how a win or a loss changes the next pick and how fast it comes. In a version of the doors task, Eben and colleagues (2020) found that doors were picked faster after a loss than after a win, part of a wider finding of faster actions after losses in gambling tasks (Verbruggen and colleagues, 2017).
More about the paradigm
Each round shows two identical doors until the participant picks one by clicking it, or with the F and J keys. A cross follows for 1 second, then the outcome for 2 seconds: a green arrow pointing up and the points won, or a red arrow pointing down and the points lost. After a cross for 1.5 seconds, the participant clicks Next round when ready, so each round starts at the participant's pace. These are the screen times of the source (Proudfit, 2015). Outcomes follow a fixed schedule that does not depend on the door picked: each block of 20 rounds holds 10 wins and 10 losses in an order drawn from the session's seed. As in the source, participants are not told that the outcomes are set in advance. A win is worth 50 points and a loss 25 points (both settings), because losses weigh about twice as much as gains, as with the source's 50 and 25 cents. A session has 3 blocks (2 to 5 in the settings) with a rest between them, after 2 practice rounds, about 8 minutes in all. The doors and arrows were drawn by code for this task. Desktop and laptop only.
The main score is the median time to pick a door on rounds after a loss minus rounds after a win; negative values mean faster picks after losses. The task also reports both medians, the share of rounds on which the participant changed door after a win and after a loss, and the same comparison for the time taken to press Next round. Rounds after a rest are left out of these comparisons, and each needs at least 5 rounds on both sides. Presses within 100 ms of the doors are counted as anticipations and not taken as picks. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Pick Time After Loss Minus Winms
- Median time to pick a door on rounds after a loss minus on rounds after a win, from the doors' onset. Rounds after a rest are left out; blank with fewer than 5 rounds on either side.
- Negative values mean faster picks after losses; there is no better direction
- Median Pick Time After a Winms
- Median time to pick a door on rounds after a win.
- Informational
- Median Pick Time After a Lossms
- Median time to pick a door on rounds after a loss.
- Informational
- Door Changes After a Win%
- Share of rounds after a win on which the other door was picked.
- Informational; outcomes do not depend on the door
- Door Changes After a Loss%
- Share of rounds after a loss on which the other door was picked.
- Informational; outcomes do not depend on the door
- Door Changes, Loss Minus Win%
- Door changes after a loss minus after a win.
- Positive values mean losses moved the next pick more than wins did
- Start Time After Loss Minus Winms
- Median time to press Next round after a loss minus after a win.
- Negative values mean the next round was started sooner after losses
- Median Start Time After a Winms
- Median time to press Next round after a win.
- Informational
- Median Start Time After a Lossms
- Median time to press Next round after a loss.
- Informational
- Median Pick Timems
- Median time to pick a door over all test rounds.
- Informational
- Points Totalpoints
- Points won minus points lost. The schedule is fixed, so every complete session at the same settings ends with the same total.
- Informational
- Anticipationscount
- Presses within 100 ms of the doors' onset. They are not taken as picks.
- Quality check
- Rounds Playedcount
- Test rounds in the scored run.
- Fewer than planned is flagged for review
- Planned Roundscount
- Test rounds in the session: 20 per block.
- Informational
Use and evidence
42 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 147% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 267 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 16 |
| 2024 | 6 |
| 2023 | 6 |
| 2022 | 8 |
| 2021 | 6 |
| 2020 | 6 |
| 2019 | 8 |
| 2018 | 1 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1 |
| 2014 | 1 |
| 2013 | 0 |
| 2012 | 0 |
| 2011 | 0 |
| 2010 | 1 |
| 2009 | 0 |
| 2008 | 1 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 1 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 5
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 14
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 7
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Doors
- 2 identical doors drawn by code for this task, picked by click or with the F and J keys.
- Round
- The doors stay until a pick. A cross follows for 1,000 ms, then the outcome for 2,000 ms, a cross for 1,500 ms and a Next round button that waits for the participant.
- Outcome
- A green arrow pointing up and the points won, or a red arrow pointing down and the points lost.
- Schedule
- Outcomes do not depend on the door picked: each block of 20 rounds holds 10 wins and 10 losses in a seeded order. 3 blocks (standard; 2 to 5) with a rest between them.
- Points
- 50 for a win and 25 for a loss (standard; 1 to 100 each), the source's two to one. The points are hypothetical by default; a setting changes the instruction line to say the study pays.
- Comparisons
- Each round that follows another round of the same block is grouped by the outcome before it, and each comparison needs at least 5 rounds on both sides. Presses within 100 ms of the doors are anticipations and are not taken as picks.
- Practice
- 2 rounds, one win and one loss in a seeded order.
The source studies record the brain's response to wins and losses, the reward positivity. This test records behavior only: how fast each door is picked and each round is started, and how often the door changes after wins and losses. As in the source, participants are not told that the outcomes are set in advance. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: doors_task_test from the scored run, a pick of the left or right door with no time limit. Outcomes follow a fixed schedule, so no door is correct and accuracy is not judged against chance. One door on 90% of rounds is flagged, not invalid. Presses within 100 ms of the doors are not taken as picks: more than max(2, 20%) of rounds with one invalidate, and any is flagged. A run short of its planned rounds is flagged for review and withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Keeping to one door is a valid way to play a game of chance, so it is only flagged; it leaves the switching scores with little to measure. A press within 100 ms of the doors cannot be a reaction to them, so presses that early follow the platform's timed-test limits.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Blocks | 3 | 2 to 5 |
| Points for a win | 50 | 1 to 100 |
| Points for a loss | 25 | 1 to 100 |
| Payment line | Hypothetical points (standard) | Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Doors Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Foti & Hajcak, 2009; Proudfit, 2015), with the standard settings (blocks: 3; points for a win: 50; points for a loss: 25; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was pick time after loss minus win (median time to pick a door on rounds after a loss minus on rounds after a win, from the doors' onset).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Foti, D., & Hajcak, G. (2009). Depression and reduced sensitivity to non-rewards versus rewards: Evidence from event-related potentials. Biological Psychology, 81(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.12.004
- Proudfit, G. H. (2015). The reward positivity: From basic research on reward to a biomarker for depression. Psychophysiology, 52(4), 449-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12370The procedure: two doors, the arrows, gains on exactly half the rounds, wins twice the size of losses, and the screen times.
- Distefano, A., Jackson, F., Levinson, A. R., Infantolino, Z. P., Jarcho, J. M., & Nelson, B. D. (2018). A comparison of the electrocortical response to monetary and social reward. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13(3), 247-255. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy006Three blocks of 20 rounds, with as many gains as losses set in advance.
- Tunison, E., Sylvain, R., Sterr, J., Hiley, V., & Carlson, J. M. (2019). No money, no problem: Enhanced reward positivity in the absence of monetary reward. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 41. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00041The task with points that are never exchanged for money.
- Eben, C., Chen, Z., Vermeylen, L., Billieux, J., & Verbruggen, F. (2020). A direct and conceptual replication of post-loss speeding when gambling. Royal Society Open Science, 7(5), 200090. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200090Faster choices after losses than after wins in a doors task.
- Verbruggen, F., Chambers, C. D., Lawrence, N. S., & McLaren, I. P. L. (2017). Winning and losing: Effects on impulsive action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000284Faster actions after losses in gambling tasks.
Source papers
- Eben C, Chen Z, Vermeylen L, Billieux J, Verbruggen F (2020). A direct and conceptual replication of post-loss speeding when gambling. Royal Society Open Science, 7(5):200090.N 24, Students, 18 to 29
- No normative data for this task.Paradigm source, N/A
Questions
How long does the Doors Task take?
About 7 to 9 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Pick Time After Loss Minus Win, Median Pick Time After a Win, Median Pick Time After a Loss, Door Changes After a Win, Door Changes After a Loss, Door Changes, Loss Minus Win, Start Time After Loss Minus Win, Median Start Time After a Win, Median Start Time After a Loss, Median Pick Time, Points Total, Anticipations, Rounds Played and Planned Rounds. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Doors Task used in research?
42 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 147% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 267 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Doors Task have?
In the published research, 5 papers report its test-retest reliability and 7 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Blocks (2 to 5), points for a win (1 to 100), points for a loss (1 to 100) and payment line (Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.