CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 163Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismCognitive Abilities and Testing

The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task

Verbruggen, Frederick, Liefooghe, Baptist, Vandierendonck, André·2004·Acta Psychologica
DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the present study, two experiments were conducted to investigate the interaction between the behavioral inhibition, measured by the stop signal task, and distractor interference, measured by the flanker task and the Stroop task. In the first experiment, the stop signal task was combined with a flanker task. Analysis revealed that participants responded faster when the distractors were congruent to the target. Also, the data suggest that it is more difficult to suppress a reaction when the distractors were incongruent. Whether the incongruent distractor was part of the response set (i.e. the distractor could also be a target) or not, had no influence on stopping reactions. In the second experiment, the stop signal task was combined with a manual version of the Stroop task and the degree of compatibility was varied. Even though in the second experiment of the present study interference control is differently operationalized, similar results as in the first experiment were found, indicating that inhibition of motor responses is influenced by the presentation of distracting information that is not part of the response set.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.011

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Experimental evidence indicates that both stroop and stop-signal task types share a common inhibitory control mechanism, and factor analytic evidence indicates that both tasks load together.

    “This conclusion appears unlikely, however, based on experimental evidence indicating that both task types share a common inhibitory control mechanism (98, 114) and factor analytic evidence indicating that both tasks load together (e.g., 5, 17).”

    From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [114]

  • Behavioral results suggest a functional relation between stop-signal inhibition and interference control in the Stroop and flanker tasks.

    “Behavioral results suggest a functional relation between stop-signal inhibition and interference control in the Stroop task and the flanker task.”

    From Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm (2008) · cites this paper as [65]

  • Incongruent trials produce interference and prolong SSRT in Stroop and flanker tasks.

    “Incongruent trials produce interference and prolong SSRT in these tasks [65, 66].”

    From Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm (2008) · cites this paper as [65]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Verbruggen, Frederick
ORCID
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-05
Volume
116
Issue
1
Pages
21-37
ISSN
0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.011
OpenAlex
W2024885722
Cited by
163
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Acta Psychologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universiteit Gent
  • Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGent
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
distractor interference, flanker task, Stroop task, response inhibition, response compatibility, interference control
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Reaction Time, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review