ArticlePloS one2023
The temporal dynamics of the Stroop effect from childhood to young and older adulthood.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Associations Between Screen Time, Sleep, and Executive Function in School-Aged Children and Adolescents: The Moderating Role of Digital Content and Age.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Heart rate variability with circadian rhythm removed achieved high accuracy for stress assessment across all times throughout the day.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Inhibition changes across the lifespan: experimental evidence from the Stroop task.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Anxiety disrupts performance monitoring: integrating behavioral, event-related potential, EEG microstate, and sLORETA evidence.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The processes involved in the Stroop task/effect are thought to involve conflict detection and resolution stages. Little is known about the evolution of these two components over the lifespan. It is well admitted that children and older adults tend to show longer response latencies than young adults. The present study aims at clarifying the rational of such changes from childhood to adulthood and in aging by comparing the impacted cognitive processes across age groups. More precisely, the aim was to clarify if all processes take more time to be executed, hence implying that longer latencies rely mainly on processing speed or if an additional process lengthens the resolution of the conflict in children and/or older adults. To this aim we recorded brain electrical activity using EEG in school-age children, young and older adults while they performed a classic verbal Stroop task. The signal was decomposed in microstate brain networks, and age groups and conditions were compared. Behavioral results evolved following an inverted U-shaped curve. In children, different brain states from the ones observed in adults were highlighted, both in the conflict detection and resolution time-windows. Longer latencies in the incongruent condition were mainly attributed to an overly increased duration of the microstates involved in the conflict resolution time window. In aging, the same microstate maps were reported for both young and older adult groups. The differences in performances between groups could be explained by a disproportionally long conflict detection phase, even compressing the latest stage of response articulation. These results tend to favor a specific immaturity of the brain networks involved coupled with a slowing of the processes in children, while cognitive decline could be mostly explained by a general slowing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.