ArticleExperimental brain research2024
Presentation of multiple task instructional sets impacts auditory Stroop performance during dual task locomotion.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The auditory Stroop is a modification of the classic Stroop paradigm commonly used in dual-task research when the motor task requires the visual system. Despite its use, there are gaps in our understanding of this tool. For example, in visual/auditory Stroop paradigms, neutral cues irrelevant to the required response, which theoretically cause less interference/facilitation, are used to elucidate effects of visual/auditory demands on neural processes. Specifically, in auditory Stroop paradigms the use and choice of neutral cue words is inconsistent. To address these gaps, we instrumented participants with kinematic markers and a digital microphone and asked them to respond to auditory Stroop cues and neutral cue words consisting of either one or two syllables, while simultaneously performing an unobstructed locomotor task. Two blocks of trials were collected. In one block, participants had prior knowledge that either an auditory Stroop or a neutral word stimulus would be presented (Known); a second block presented both types of cognitive cues in a random order to participants (Mixed). We observed main effects of cognitive task (neutral, incongruent, congruent) and instructional set (Known, Mixed) on response times, but not on center of mass velocity. Also, more time was required to verbally respond to an incongruent compared to congruent or neutral task across all conditions, and neutral task words with one syllable resulted in longer response times compared to two syllable neutral words. We recommend that researchers include neutral cues when using the auditory Stroop test and to carefully consider their neutral word choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39110163What 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.