Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34595729›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022

Some further clarifications on age-related differences in the Stroop task: New evidence from the two-to-one Stroop paradigm.

Mariana Burca, Pierre Chausse, Ludovic Ferrand, Benjamin A Parris, Maria Augustinova

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mariana BurcaUniversité de Rouen Normandie, Le Centre de Recherches sur les Fonctionnements et Dysfonctionnements Psychologiques (CRFDP, EA 7475), UFR SHS - Bâtiment Freinet, Place Emile Blondel, 76821, Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France. mariana.burca2@univ-rouen.fr.
Pierre ChausseUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LAPSCO, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Ludovic FerrandUniversité Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LAPSCO, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Benjamin A ParrisDepartment of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK.
Maria AugustinovaUniversité de Rouen Normandie, Le Centre de Recherches sur les Fonctionnements et Dysfonctionnements Psychologiques (CRFDP, EA 7475), UFR SHS - Bâtiment Freinet, Place Emile Blondel, 76821, Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France. maria.augustinova@univ-rouen.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-4418

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR Grant ANR-19-CE28-0013Région Normandie (Normandy Region) RIN DoctorantRégion Normandie (Normandy Region) RIN Tremplin Grant 19E00851
6 · The paper itself

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

Conflict, PsychologicalSemanticsAgedAgingHumansReaction TimeStroop TestAgingResponse conflictSemantic conflictStroop interference

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.