Executive Function
Rule Anticipation Test
Also called: rule detection task, rule attainment task, rule induction task, spatial prediction task
Measure how people find a rule and notice when it changes: participants predict where a dot will move next as its pattern changes without warning.
5-7 minUntimed
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
- 20
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 10
What it measures
Measures how people find a rule and notice when it changes. A dot moves around a ring of eight circles by a simple pattern, and participants click or tap where it will go next. The pattern changes without warning.
Constructs
- Rule detection
- Set shifting
- Perseveration
Research uses
- Neuropsychology and executive-function research
- Frontal lobe and brain injury research
- Repeated testing with two forms
How the paradigm works
The rule anticipation test measures how people find a rule from what they see and notice when it changes. Eight circles form a ring, and one of them is filled: the dot. On each page, participants click or tap the circle where they think the dot will be on the next page, then see where it went. The dot moves by a simple rule: one or two places clockwise or counterclockwise, a jump to the opposite circle, or back and forth between two circles. The rule changes without warning, so a guess that kept being right stops working and the new rule has to be found from the next moves.
More about the paradigm
Each form runs ten rules for 5 to 8 moves each, 60 moves in all. The first choice comes before any move has been seen and is not scored, which leaves 59 scored predictions. Every change sends the dot somewhere the old rule would not. The session's seed turns the ring and may mirror it, so everyone meets the same rules in the same order at different places. Form 2 runs the same rules in another order, for retesting. Eight practice predictions, with one change, say whether each choice was right. The test does not, but each choice stays marked while the dot's next place appears. There is no time limit, and the circles are buttons that work with a mouse or by touch.
The main score is the number of wrong predictions. A rule counts as acquired when three predictions in a row are right within it. Errors are sorted as Burgess and Shallice (1996) sorted them: perseverative errors choose where the rule before the change would send the dot, other-rule errors follow another rule of the test, and guesses follow no rule of the test (their bizarre responses). Errors made after a rule was acquired count as rule losses. The method is Burgess and Shallice's, with a layout, rules and order of our own, so the scores are not interchangeable with those of the commercial test built on the same method.
Scores
- Errorscount
- Scored predictions that were wrong, out of 59.
- Lower is better
- Rules Acquiredcount
- Rules in which three predictions in a row were right, from 0 to 10.
- Higher is better
- Perseverative Errorscount
- Errors that chose where the rule before the last change would send the dot.
- Lower is better
- Other-Rule Errorscount
- Errors that follow another rule of the test: a step of one or two either way, a jump across, or back where the dot came from.
- Lower is better
- Guessescount
- Errors that no rule of the test explains (the bizarre responses of Burgess and Shallice 1996).
- Lower is better
- Rule Lossescount
- Errors made after the rule in force had been acquired, before it changed.
- Lower is better
- Predictions to Acquire a Ruletrials
- Mean predictions a rule took, up to and including the third right one in a row, over the rules acquired.
- Lower is faster
- Correct Predictions (%)%
- Right predictions as a percent of the scored predictions.
- Higher is better
- Median Decision Timems
- Median time from a page appearing to the choice.
- Informational
- Early Clickscount
- Clicks within 100 ms of a page appearing, which are not taken as choices.
- Lower is better
- Scored Predictionstrials
- Predictions scored: every one but the first.
- Informational
Use and evidence
20 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 13% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 327 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 5 |
| 2024 | 4 |
| 2023 | 3 |
| 2022 | 3 |
| 2021 | 5 |
| 2020 | 4 |
| 2019 | 1 |
| 2018 | 10 |
| 2017 | 5 |
| 2016 | 3 |
| 2015 | 6 |
| 2014 | 5 |
| 2013 | 6 |
| 2012 | 5 |
| 2011 | 10 |
| 2010 | 7 |
| 2009 | 3 |
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 2 |
| 2005 | 5 |
| 2004 | 4 |
| 2003 | 2 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 2 |
| 2000 | 2 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 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
- 1
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 16
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 10
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.
- Display
- Eight circles in a ring, one of them filled: the dot. The session's seed turns the ring and may mirror it.
- Response
- Click or tap the circle where the dot will go next. No time limit; a click within 100 ms of a page is not taken.
- Rules
- A step of one or two places clockwise or counterclockwise, a jump to the opposite circle, and back and forth between two circles.
- Sequence
- 10 rules of 5 to 8 moves each, 60 moves in all, changing without warning. The first prediction comes before any move and is not scored, which leaves 59.
- Forms
- Form 1 (standard) or form 2: the same rules and lengths in another order.
- Outcome
- The choice stays marked for 300 ms, then the next page shows where the dot went. The test never says right or wrong.
- Practice
- 8 predictions with one rule change, each followed by right or wrong.
- Score
- Wrong predictions. A rule counts as acquired after 3 right predictions in a row.
The published task shows ten numbered circles in two rows of five. This version puts eight unnumbered circles in a ring, so no move meets the end of a row, and uses rules and an order of its own.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: rule_anticipation_test predictions from the scored run, without the first guess, each a choice among eight circles (chance 12.5%). Accuracy at or below chance is flagged for review and never invalidates. Choosing one circle on 90% of predictions invalidates when accuracy is not above chance, because the right circle moves every page. Answers under 200 ms on at least half the predictions invalidate. Finding no rule in 30 or more predictions is flagged.
Why these rules
Perseverating on a rule that is no longer rewarded produces systematic errors, so accuracy at or below chance can be the result the test measures; it is flagged for review and never invalidates. Guessing and holding on to an old rule are what the test measures, so accuracy alone never invalidates. Choosing nearly always the same circle ignores the dot. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Form | Form 1 (standard) | Form 1 (standard), Form 2 |
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
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Rule Anticipation Test in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Burgess & Shallice, 1996), with the standard settings (form: Form 1). The main score was errors (scored predictions that were wrong, out of 59).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Burgess, P. W., & Shallice, T. (1996). Bizarre responses, rule detection and frontal lobe lesions. Cortex, 32(2), 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(96)80049-9
- Reverberi, C., Lavaroni, A., Gigli, G. L., Skrap, M., & Shallice, T. (2005). Specific impairments of rule induction in different frontal lobe subgroups. Neuropsychologia, 43(3), 460-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.06.008Rule induction measured with a version of the task in patients with frontal lesions.
- van den Berg, E., Nys, G. M. S., Brands, A. M. A., Ruis, C., van Zandvoort, M. J. E., & Kessels, R. P. C. (2009). The Brixton Spatial Anticipation Test as a test for executive function: Validity in patient groups and norms for older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15(5), 695-703. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617709990269Validity of the method in patient groups.
Source papers
- Burgess PW, Shallice T (1996). Bizarre responses, rule detection and frontal lobe lesions. Cortex, 32(2):241-259.Paradigm source, Adults
- van den Berg E, Nys GMS, Brands AMA, Ruis C, van Zandvoort MJE, Kessels RPC (2009). The Brixton Spatial Anticipation Test as a test for executive function: validity in patient groups and norms for older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15(5):695-703.Paradigm source, Older adults
Questions
How long does the Rule Anticipation Test take?
About 5 to 7 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Errors, Rules Acquired, Perseverative Errors, Other-Rule Errors, Guesses, Rule Losses, Predictions to Acquire a Rule, Correct Predictions (%), Median Decision Time, Early Clicks and Scored Predictions. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Rule Anticipation Test used in research?
20 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 13% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 327 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Rule Anticipation Test have?
In the published research, 1 paper reports its test-retest reliability and 10 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Form (Form 1 (standard), Form 2). 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.