Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37190551›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2023

Event-Related Potentials Reveal the Impact of Conflict Strength in a Numerical Stroop Paradigm.

Nydia Vurdah, Julie Vidal, Arnaud Viarouge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Nydia VurdahInstitute of Psychology, Université Paris Cité, LaPsyDÉ, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France.
Julie VidalInstitute of Psychology, Université Paris Cité, LaPsyDÉ, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France.
Arnaud ViarougeInstitute of Psychology, Université Paris Cité, LaPsyDÉ, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6027-7093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerical cognition provides an opportunity to study the underlying processes of selective attention to numerical information in the face of conflicting, non-numerical, information of different magnitudes. For instance, in the numerical Stroop paradigm, participants are asked to judge pairs of Arabic digits whose physical size can either be congruent (e.g., 3 vs. 5) or incongruent (e.g., 3 vs. 5) with numerical value. Congruency effects when deciding which of the two digits is numerically larger are thought to reflect the inhibition of the irrelevant physical size. However, few studies have investigated the impact of the salience of the irrelevant non-numerical information on these congruency effects and their neural substrates. EEG was recorded in 32 adults during a numerical Stroop task with two levels of salience (low, high) of the irrelevant size dimension. At the behavioral level, we observed larger congruency effects in the high salience condition (i.e., when the difference in size between the two digits is larger). At the neural level, at centro-parietal electrodes, we replicated previous studies showing a main effect of congruency on event-related potential (ERP) amplitudes between 280 and 370 ms post-stimulus, as well as a main effect of salience around 200 ms post-stimulus. Crucially, congruency and salience interacted both between 230 and 250 ms (P2), and between 290 and 340 ms (P3). These results provide support for separate processes underlying the increase in congruency effect, which can be attributed to higher demands in both the inhibition of the irrelevant dimension, and the attention to the relevant numerical information.

Indexed as

attention to numbercongruency effectsERPsnumerical Stroop

Identifiers

PMID37190551
PMCPMC10136745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.