Evidence for interaction between the stop signal and the Stroop task conflict.
Abstract
Performance of the Stroop task reflects two conflicts--informational (between the incongruent word and ink color) and task (between relevant color naming and irrelevant word reading). The task conflict is usually not visible, and is only seen when task control is damaged. Using the stop-signal paradigm, a few studies demonstrated longer stop-signal reaction times for incongruent trials than for congruent trials. This indicates interaction between stopping and the informational conflict. Here we suggest that "zooming in" on task-control failure trials will reveal another interaction--between stopping and task conflict. To examine this suggestion, we combined stop-signal and Stroop tasks in the same experiment. When participants' control failed and erroneous responses to a stop signal occurred, a reverse facilitation emerged in the Stroop task (Experiment 1) and this was eliminated using methods that manipulated the emergence of the reverse facilitation (Experiment 2). Results from both experiments were replicated when all stimuli were used in the same task (Experiment 3). In erroneous response trials, only the task conflict increased, not the informational conflict. These results indicate that task conflict and stop-signal inhibition share a common control mechanism that is dissociable from the control mechanism activated by the informational conflict.
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?
The task's well-documented interference effects occur when the color word is printed in a color different than the word's meaning, requiring inhibitory control processes to stop automatic word reading while prioritizing less automatic color recognition.
“The task’s well-documented interference effects occur when the color word is printed in a color different than the word’s meaning (e.g., the word ‘red’ printed in blue font), requiring inhibitory control processes to stop the automatic word reading while prioritizing the less automatic color recognition (98).”
From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [98]
The task's inhibition demands occur because of the overlearned, automatic tendency to read words, combined with task instructions to ignore the word's meaning and instead respond based on the word's font color.
“The task’s inhibition demands occur because of the overlearned, automatic tendency to read words, combined with task instructions to ignore the word’s meaning and instead respond based on the word’s font color.”
From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [98]
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 [98]
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798 · see citing works
Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207 · Cited by 3,170 · see citing works
On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a theory of an act of control
Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.91.3.295 · Cited by 2,590 · see citing works
The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101 · Cited by 2,309 · see citing works
Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex
Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/46035 · Cited by 2,044 · see citing works
Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm
Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005 · Cited by 1,373 · see citing works
Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., van den Wildenberg, W., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2003) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.3.1.17 · Cited by 1,250 · see citing works
Learned predictions of error likelihood in the anterior cingulate cortex
Brown, J. W., & Braver, T. S. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1105783 · Cited by 928 · see citing works
Richard Ridderinkhof, K., P.H. Band, G., & D. Logan, G. (1999) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00010-4 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2004) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.011 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1 · Cited by 1,457 · see citing works
Anxiety, Emotional Distraction, and Attentional Control in the Stroop Task
Kalanthroff, E., Henik, A., Derakshan, N., & Usher, M. (2016) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000129 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Self-citationTo Do or Not to Do? Task Control Deficit in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Kalanthroff, E., Henik, A., Simpson, H. B., Todder, D., & Anholt, G. E. (2017) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2017.01.004 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Self-citationKalanthroff, E., Teichert, T., Wheaton, M. G., Kimeldorf, M. B., Linkovski, O., Ahmari, S. E., Fyer, A. J., Schneier, F. R., Anholt, G. E., & Simpson, H. B. (2017) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.22492 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationAlways on guard: test of high vs. low control conditions in obsessive-compulsive disorder patients
Kalanthroff, E., Anholt, G. E., & Henik, A. (2014) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.05.050 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationKofler, M. J., Groves, N. B., Chan, E. S. M., Marsh, C. L., Cole, A. M., Gaye, F., Cibrian, E., Tatsuki, M. O., & Singh, L. J. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1277583 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kalanthroff, E., Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A.
- Affiliations
- Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 579-592
- ISSN
- 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1277
- OpenAlex
- W2065239700
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
- Keywords
- stop-signal task, Stroop task, task conflict, stop-signal reaction time, task control, response inhibition
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Color Perception, Conflict, Psychological, Cues, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Reading, Students, Young Adult, Stroop Test
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
