ArticleHuman brain mapping2023
A new perspective on the role of the frontoparietal regions in Stroop-like conflicts.
Article in Human brain mapping, 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.
- Conflict adaptation in a confound-minimized face-word Stroop task: exploring the potential settings of an fMRI-related experiment.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Isolating perceptual conflict: a theoretical and methodological analysis of the Task-Irrelevant Paradigm.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Associations between neurolinguistic deficits and personality traits in people with epilepsy.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- A new perspective on the role of the frontoparietal regions in Stroop-like conflicts.Human brain mapping · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans are goal-directed; however, goal-unrelated information still affects us, but how? The Stroop task is often used to answer this question, relying on conflict (incongruency) between attributes, one targeted by the task and another irrelevant to the task. The frontal regions of the brain are known to play a crucial role in processing such conflict, as they show increased activity when we encounter incongruent stimuli. Notably, the Stroop stimuli also consist of conceptual dimensions, such as semantic or emotional content, that are independent of the attributes that define the conflict. Since the non-targeted attribute usually refers to the same conceptual dimension as the targeted-attribute, it is relevant to the task at hand. For example, when naming the emotion of an emotional face superimposed by an emotional word, both the targeted-attribute and the non-targeted attribute refer to the conceptual dimension "emotion". We designed an fMRI paradigm to investigate how conflicts between different conceptual dimensions impact us. Even though the conflict was task-irrelevant, incongruent stimuli resulted in longer reaction times, indicating a behavioral congruency effect. When examining the neural mechanisms that underlie this effect, we found that the frontal regions exhibited repetition suppression, while the bilateral intraparietal sulcus (IPS) showed a congruency effect linked to the behavioral effect. Taken together, these findings suggest that individuals are unable to completely ignore task-irrelevant information, and that the IPS plays a crucial role in processing such information.
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.