Mechanisms underlying reduction in Stroop interference with practice for young and old adults.
Abstract
Age-related factors in the reduction of Stroop interference with practice were examined in 3 studies. Young and old adults received extensive practice on a modified version of the Stroop task. Both groups showed reduced interference on the Stroop task with practice. Results suggest that young adults' reduction in Stroop interference was due to general task factors plus the development of a reading suppression response. The old adults' reduction in Stroop interference was attributed primarily to general task factors. Results indicate that old adults have greater difficulty than young adults in developing new automatic processes and modifying existing automatic processes. The implication of these findings for current models of Stroop interference is that, in addition to automatic processing, attentional mechanisms must be incorporated to account for the age-related differences.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Executive functions are particularly vulnerable to declines at later ages.
“Executive planning and organizational skills appear to be important to maintaining functional independence (4–7) and appear to be particularly vulnerable to declines at later ages (8–10) along with the prefrontal cortical regions of the brain that support them (11–14).”
From Evidence for Neurocognitive Plasticity in At-Risk Older Adults: The Experience Corps Program (2009) · cites this paper as [10]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evidence for Neurocognitive Plasticity in At-Risk Older Adults: The Experience Corps Program
Carlson, M. C., Erickson, K. I., Kramer, A. F., Voss, M. W., Bolea, N., Mielke, M., McGill, S., Rebok, G. W., Seeman, T., & Fried, L. P. (2009) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences · doi:10.1093/gerona/glp117 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Macleod, C. M. (1998) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03201133 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Zhang, Q., Wang, C., Zhao, Q., Yang, L., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2019) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12748 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
“…improvements are consistent with previous findings that demonstrated improvements in stop-signal task performance (Berkman et al., 2014), go/nogo and flanker performance (Thorell et al., 2009), as well as Stroop performance (Dulaney & Rogers, 1994; MacLeod, 1998; MacLeod & Dunbar, 1988).”
Result
- Authors
- Dulaney, C. L., & Rogers, W. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Memphis (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 470-484
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2061347168
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 2.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Public Health Service (15558)
- 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 Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- Stroop interference, age differences, practice effects, aging, automatic processing, attentional mechanisms, cognitive aging, interference suppression
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aging, Attention, Color Perception, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Practice, Psychological, Reaction Time, Reading, Mental Recall, Semantics
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
