ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022
Some further clarifications on age-related differences in the Stroop task: New evidence from the two-to-one Stroop paradigm.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissociating task, semantic, and response conflict in cognitive aging: evidence from a low-cognitive control Stroop paradigm.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Age-related differences in information, but not task control in the color-word Stroop task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- The Effect of Executive Cognitive Distraction on Sustaining a Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction During a Unipedal Functional Movement in Healthy Participants.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025Article
- Psychometric validation of the French Multidimensional Chronic Asthenia Scale (MCAS) in a sample of 621 patients with chronic fatigue.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- A mouse-tracking study of the composite nature of the Stroop effect at the level of response execution.PloS one · 2023Article
- Do Task Sets Compete in the Stroop Task and Other Selective Attention Paradigms?Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- Psycholinguistics: Analysis of Knowledge Domains on Children's Language Acquisition, Production, Comprehension, and Dissolution.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies (Augustinova et al., Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(2), 767-774, 2018; Li & Bosman, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 3(4), 272-284, 1996) have shown that the larger Stroop effects reported in older adults is specifically due to age-related differences in the magnitude of response - and not semantic - conflict, both of which are thought to contribute to overall Stroop interference. However, the most recent contribution to the issue of the unitary versus composite nature of the Stroop effect argues that semantic conflict has not been clearly dissociated from response conflict in these or any other past Stroop studies, meaning that the very existence of semantic conflict is at present uncertain. To distinguish clearly between the two types of conflict, the present study employed the two-to-one Stroop paradigm with a color-neutral word baseline. This addition made it possible to isolate a contribution of semantic conflict that was independent of both response conflict and Stroop facilitation. Therefore, this study provides the first unambiguous empirical demonstration of the composite nature of Stroop interference - as originally claimed by multi-stage models of Stroop interference. This permitted the further observation of significantly higher levels of semantic conflict in older adults, whereas the level of response conflict in the present study remained unaffected by healthy aging - a finding that directly contrasts with previous studies employing alternative measures of response and semantic conflict. Two qualitatively different explanations of this apparent divergence across studies are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34595729What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.