A comparison between different variants of the spatial Stroop task: The influence of analytic flexibility on Stroop effect estimates and reliability

Abstract

AbstractThe spatial Stroop task measures the ability to resolve interference between relevant and irrelevant spatial information. We recently proposed a four-choice spatial Stroop task that ensures methodological advantages over the original color-word verbal Stroop task, requiring participants to indicate the direction of an arrow while ignoring its position in one of the screen corners. However, its peripheral spatial arrangement might represent a methodological weakness and could introduce experimental confounds. Thus, aiming at improving our “Peripheral” spatial Stroop, we designed and made available five novel spatial Stroop tasks (Perifoveal, Navon, Figure-Ground, Flanker, and Saliency), wherein the stimuli appeared at the center of the screen. In a within-subjects online study, we compared the six versions to identify which task produced the largest but also the most reliable and robust Stroop effect. Indeed, although internal reliability is frequently overlooked, its estimate is fundamental, also in light of the recently proposed reliability paradox. Data analyses were performed using both the classical general linear model analytical approach and two multilevel modelling approaches (linear mixed models and random coefficient analysis), which specifically served for more accurately estimating the Stroop effect by explaining intra-subject, trial-by-trial variability. We then assessed our results based on their robustness to such analytic flexibility. Overall, our results indicate that the Perifoveal spatial Stroop is the best alternative task for its statistical properties and methodological advantages. Interestingly, our results also indicate that the Peripheral and Perifoveal Stroop effects were not only the largest, but also those with highest and most robust internal reliability.