Cited by 464Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Stroop performance in focal lesion patients: dissociation of processes and frontal lobe lesion location

Stuss, D.T, Floden, D, Alexander, M.P, Levine, B, Katz, D·2001·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

There were three primary objectives: to examine the usefulness of the Stroop interference effect as a measure of frontal lobe function; to investigate the possibility of distinct lesion effects for word reading or color naming; and to specifically determine the brain regions necessary for the performance of the incongruent condition. Fifty-one patients with single focal brain lesions in frontal and non-frontal regions and 26 normal control subjects (CTL) were administered the word reading, color naming and incongruent conditions of the Stroop task. Only frontal lesions produced significant impairment. Patients with posterior lesions were not significantly deficient in any condition. Damage to the left dorsolateral frontal lobe resulted in increased errors and slowness in response speed for color naming. Contrary to Perret (Neuropsychology, 1974; 12: 323-330), lesions of the left frontal lobe did not result in a selective interference deficit on the Stroop incongruent condition. Rather, bilateral superior medial frontal damage was associated with increased errors and slowness in response time for the incongruent condition. This result is interpreted as failure of maintenance of consistent activation of the intended response in the incongruent Stroop condition. The results and conclusion are compatible with the prevalent theories of both the Stroop effect and the role of the superior medial frontal regions. The role of the anterior cingulate cortex on performance of the Stroop task is likely related to task and patient context.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00013-6

Cites

9 of 9 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stuss, D. T., Floden, D., Alexander, M. P., Levine, B., & Katz, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Stuss, D.T
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-01
Volume
39
Issue
8
Pages
771-786
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969512253
Cited by
464
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 26
FWCI
8.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (NINDS 26985)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P50NS026985)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
Stroop interference, frontal lobe lesions, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, color naming, word reading, response inhibition, response speed, lesion localization
MeSH terms
Adult, Color Perception, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Brain Injury, Chronic

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