» Articles » PMID: 34389901

The Loci of Stroop Effects: a Critical Review of Methods and Evidence for Levels of Processing Contributing to Color-word Stroop Effects and the Implications for the Loci of Attentional Selection

Overview
Journal Psychol Res
Specialty Psychology
Date 2021 Aug 14
PMID 34389901
Citations 23
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Despite instructions to ignore the irrelevant word in the Stroop task, it robustly influences the time it takes to identify the color, leading to performance decrements (interference) or enhancements (facilitation). The present review addresses two questions: (1) What levels of processing contribute to Stroop effects; and (2) Where does attentional selection occur? The methods that are used in the Stroop literature to measure the candidate varieties of interference and facilitation are critically evaluated and the processing levels that contribute to Stroop effects are discussed. It is concluded that the literature does not provide clear evidence for a distinction between conflicting and facilitating representations at phonological, semantic and response levels (together referred to as informational conflict), because the methods do not currently permit their isolated measurement. In contrast, it is argued that the evidence for task conflict as being distinct from informational conflict is strong and, thus, that there are at least two loci of attentional selection in the Stroop task. Evidence suggests that task conflict occurs earlier, has a different developmental trajectory and is independently controlled which supports the notion of a separate mechanism of attentional selection. The modifying effects of response modes and evidence for Stroop effects at the level of response execution are also discussed. It is argued that multiple studies claiming to have distinguished response and semantic conflict have not done so unambiguously and that models of Stroop task performance need to be modified to more effectively account for the loci of Stroop effects.

Citing Articles

Age-related changes in attentional selection: revealing processes underlying the degradation of task set quality.

Burca M, Hasshim N, Chausse P, Clarys D, Ferrand L, Maquestiaux F Psychol Res. 2025; 89(2):57.

PMID: 40014157 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-025-02087-3.


Practice makes better? The influence of increased practice on task conflict in the Stroop task.

Najenson J, Zaks-Ohayon R, Tzelgov J, Fresco N Mem Cognit. 2025; .

PMID: 39863745 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01677-7.


Age-related differences in information, but not task control in the color-word Stroop task.

Keha E, Aisenberg-Shafran D, Hochman S, Kalanthroff E Psychon Bull Rev. 2025; .

PMID: 39825044 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02631-z.


Stroop task and practice effects demonstrate cognitive dysfunction in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome.

Baraniuk J, Thapaliya K, Inderyas M, Shan Z, Barnden L Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):26796.

PMID: 39500939 PMC: 11538523. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-75651-3.


Principles of cognitive control over task focus and task switching.

Egner T Nat Rev Psychol. 2024; 2(11):702-714.

PMID: 39301103 PMC: 11409542. DOI: 10.1038/s44159-023-00234-4.


References
1.
White D, Risko E, Besner D . The semantic Stroop effect: An ex-Gaussian analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016; 23(5):1576-1581. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1014-9. View

2.
Kornblum S, Lee J . Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995; 21(4):855-75. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.4.855. View

3.
De Houwer J . On the role of stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Mem Cognit. 2003; 31(3):353-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194393. View

4.
Gonthier C, Braver T, Bugg J . Dissociating proactive and reactive control in the Stroop task. Mem Cognit. 2016; 44(5):778-88. PMC: 4942492. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-016-0591-1. View

5.
Schmidt J, Hartsuiker R, De Houwer J . Interference in Dutch-French Bilinguals. Exp Psychol. 2018; 65(1):13-22. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000384. View