Not All Stroop-Type Tasks Are Alike: Assessing the Impact of Stimulus Material, Task Design, and Cognitive Demand via Meta-analyses Across Neuroimaging Studies
-
Published:2024-09-12
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1040-7308
-
Container-title:Neuropsychology Review
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Neuropsychol Rev
Author:
Müller Veronika I.ORCID, Cieslik Edna C., Ficco Linda, Tyralla Sandra, Sepehry Amir Ali, Aziz-Safaie Taraneh, Feng Chunliang, Eickhoff Simon B., Langner Robert
Abstract
AbstractThe Stroop effect is one of the most often studied examples of cognitive conflict processing. Over time, many variants of the classic Stroop task were used, including versions with different stimulus material, control conditions, presentation design, and combinations with additional cognitive demands. The neural and behavioral impact of this experimental variety, however, has never been systematically assessed. We used activation likelihood meta-analysis to summarize neuroimaging findings with Stroop-type tasks and to investigate whether involvement of the multiple-demand network (anterior insula, lateral frontal cortex, intraparietal sulcus, superior/inferior parietal lobules, midcingulate cortex, and pre-supplementary motor area) can be attributed to resolving some higher-order conflict that all of the tasks have in common, or if aspects that vary between task versions lead to specialization within this network. Across 133 neuroimaging experiments, incongruence processing in the color-word Stroop variant consistently recruited regions of the multiple-demand network, with modulation of spatial convergence by task variants. In addition, the neural patterns related to solving Stroop-like interference differed between versions of the task that use different stimulus material, with the only overlap between color-word, emotional picture-word, and other types of stimulus material in the posterior medial frontal cortex and right anterior insula. Follow-up analyses on behavior reported in these studies (in total 164 effect sizes) revealed only little impact of task variations on the mean effect size of reaction time. These results suggest qualitative processing differences among the family of Stroop variants, despite similar task difficulty levels, and should carefully be considered when planning or interpreting Stroop-type neuroimaging experiments.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft National Institute of Mental Health Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference242 articles.
1. *Adleman, N. E., Menon, V., Blasey, C. M., White, C. D., Warsofsky, I. S., Glover, G. H., & Reiss, A. L. (2002). A developmental fMRI study of the Stroop color-word task. Neuroimage, 16(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.1046 2. **Agostini, A., Ballotta, D., Righi, S., Moretti, M., Bertani, A., Scarcelli, A., Sartini, A., Ercolani, M., Nichelli, P., Campieri, M., & Benuzzi, F. (2017). Stress and brain functional changes in patients with Crohn’s disease: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 29(10), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13108 3. Algom, D., Chajut, E., & Lev, S. (2004). A rational look at the emotional Stroop phenomenon: A generic slowdown, not a Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.323 4. Algom, D., Fitousi, D., & Chajut, E. (2022). Can the Stroop effect serve as the gold standard of conflict monitoring and control? A conceptual critique. Memory and Cognition, 50(5), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01251-5 5. **Almdahl, I. S., Martinussen, L. J., Agartz, I., Hugdahl, K., & Korsnes, M. S. (2021). Inhibition of emotions in healthy aging: Age-related differences in brain network connectivity. Brain and Behavior, 11(5), e02052. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2052
|
|