CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismCognitive Functions and Memory

Practice makes better? The influence of increased practice on task conflict in the Stroop task

Open access
Najenson, Jonathan, Zaks-Ohayon, Rut, Tzelgov, Joseph, Fresco, Nir·2025·Memory & Cognition
DOI 10.3758/s13421-024-01677-7PMC PMC12401770
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Stroop task is widely used to study attentional control and cognitive flexibility. However, questions about its sensitivity to training and the impact of task conflict on attentional control remain open. We investigated the effects of practice and task conflict on attentional control in the Stroop task, with participants completing four sessions of a Stroop task over 3 weeks in low and high task-conflict conditions. Our results show that the level of task conflict had an impact only in the first session, even though participants remained sensitive to task conflict throughout all four sessions. Moreover, we found that practice reduced response times in the Stroop task, for both congruent and incongruent trials. Nevertheless, the interference between congruent and incongruent stimuli remained consistent over the 3-week period, indicating that inter-condition interference is not affected by training. Our study, therefore, suggests that the extent to which the level of task conflict modulates Stroop task performance is only partially sensitive to training. These findings provide further insights into the role of task conflict and practice in attentional control and cognitive flexibility.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13421-024-01677-7

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 change in cognitive performances from pre to post-heating in this study exceeds the typical learning gains and known coefficients of variation (∼8%; 3-7%) for Stroop test reaction time and IGT net score respectively.

    “However, based on practice gains reported in literature, the change in cognitive performances from pre to post-heating in our study exceeds the typical learning gains and known coefficients of variation (∼8 %; 3–7 %) for Stroop test reaction time and IGT net score respectively.54, 55, 56, 57”

    From Influence of habitual physical activity on cognitive performance of healthy young adults after passive heat exposure (2026) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Results (page unavailable) report that Stroop reaction times decreased across practice sessions, supporting the claim that practice can improve Stroop performance. The paper does not establish a typical 8% learning gain or coefficient of variation, and it does not address IGT net scores or the cited study’s pre- to post-heating change. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Altmann, E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research, 66 (4), 287–297. 10.1007/s00426-002-0102-9 12466926 · DOI
  2. Anderson, J. R. (Ed.). (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice: Allen Newell and Paul S. Psychology Press.
  3. Besner, D., Stolz, J. A., & Boutilier, C. (1997). The stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4 (2), 221–225. 10.3758/BF03209396 21331828 · DOI
  4. Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076–1086. 10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.1076 17907873 · DOI
  5. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108 (3), 624–652. 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624 11488380 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (12), 539–546. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003 15556023 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23 (9), 769–783. 10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002 31331794 PMC6699878 · DOI
  8. Braverman, A., & Meiran, N. (2015). Conflict control in task conflict and response conflict. Psychological research, 79, 238–248. 24696133
  9. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Chanani, S. (2011). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 37 (3), 844–859. 10.1037/a0019957 20718569 · DOI
  10. Campbell, J. I., & Thompson, V. A. (2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior research methods, 44, 1255–1265. 22437511
  11. Chen, A., Tang, D., & Chen, X. (2013). Training reveals the sources of stroop and flanker interference effects. PLoS One, 8 (10), e76580. 10.1371/journal.pone.0076580 24146892 PMC3795719 · DOI
  12. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361. 10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332 2200075 · DOI
  13. Davidson, D. J., Zacks, R. T., & Williams, C. C. (2010). Stroop Interference, Practice, and Aging. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 10 (2), 85–98. 10.1076/anec.10.2.85.14463 PMC1761647 17203134 · DOI
  14. De Pisapia, N., & Braver, T. S. (2006). A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions. Neurocomputing: An International Journal, 69, 1322–1326. 10.1016/j.neucom.2005.12.100 · DOI
  15. Dulaney, C. L., & Ellis, N. R. (1991). Long-term recognition memory for items and attributes by retarded and nonretarded persons. Intelligence, 15 (1), 105–115. · DOI
  16. Dulaney, C. L., & Rogers, W. A. (1994). Mechanisms underlying reduction in Stroop interference with practice for young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 470–484. 10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.470 8151280 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Dyer, F. N. (1973). The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the stlldy of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes. Memory & Cognition, 1 (2), 106–120. 24214501
  18. Entel, O., & Tzelgov, J. (2018). Focusing on task conflict in the Stroop effect. Psychological research, 82, 284–295. 27915364
  19. Entel, O., Tzelgov, J., Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Shahar, N. (2015). Exploring relations between task conflict and informational conflict in the Stroop task. Psychological Research, 79, 913–927. 10.1007/s00426-014-0630-0 25420632 · DOI
  20. Forrin, N. D., & MacLeod, C. M. (2017). Relative speed of processing determines color–word contingency learning. Memory & Cognition, 45, 1206–1222. 10.3758/s13421-017-0721-4 28585160 · DOI
  21. Friedgen, E., Koch, I., Poljac, E., Liefooghe, B., & Stephan, D. N. (2024). Voluntary task switching is affected by modality compatibility and preparation. Memory & Cognition, 52, 1195–1209. 1-15. 38388779 PMC11315712
  22. García-Rueda, L., Poch, C., & Campo, P. (2022). Forgetting details in visual long-term memory: Decay or interference? Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, 887321. 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.887321 35928790 PMC9345118 · DOI
  23. Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2007). Evidence for task conflict in the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33 (5), 1170. 17924815
  24. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121 (4), 480. 1431740
  25. Grützmann, R., Kathmann, N., & Heinzel, S. (2022). Effects of a three-week executive control training on adaptation to task difficulty and emotional interference. Plos one, 17 (11), e0276994. 10.1371/journal.pone.0276994 36413545 PMC9681094 · DOI
  26. Haith, A. M., & Krakauer, J. W. (2018). The multiple effects of practice: Skill, habit and reduced cognitive load. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 20, 196–201. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.015 30944847 PMC6443249 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Hardwick, R. M., Forrence, A. D., Krakauer, J. W., & Haith, A. M. (2019). Time-dependent competition between goal-directed and habitual response preparation. Nature Human Behaviour, 3 (12), 12. 10.1038/s41562-019-0725-0 31570762 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hennessey, N. W., Dourado, E., & Beilby, J. M. (2014). Anxiety and speaking in people who stutter: An investigation using the emotional Stroop task. Journal of fluency disorders, 40, 44–57. 24929466
  29. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of Probability (3rd ed., pp. 95–103). Oxford University Press.
  30. Jostmann, N. B., & Koole, S. L. (2007). On the regulation of cognitive control: Action orientation moderates the impact of high demands in Stroop interference tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 (4), 593–609. 17999573
  31. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 132 (1), 47–70. 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47 12656297 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current directions in psychological science, 19 (3), 143–148. 10.1177/096372141037029 · DOI
  33. Levin, Y., & Tzelgov, J. (2014). Conflict components of the Stroop effect and their “control.” Frontiers in Psychology, 5. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00463 PMC4033599 24904479 · DOI
  34. Levin, Y., & Tzelgov, J. (2016). What Klein’s “semantic gradient” does and does not really show: Decomposing stroop interference into task and informational conflict components. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00249 PMC4767933 26955363 · DOI
  35. Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 219–234. 10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.219 8189189 · DOI
  36. Littman, R., Keha, E., & Kalanthroff, E. (2019). Task conflict and task control: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01598 PMC6650768 31379659 · DOI
  37. Logan, G. D. (1979). On the use of a concurrent memory load to measure attention and automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 189–207. 10.1037/0096-1523.5.2.189 · DOI
  38. Logan, G. D. (1985). Executive control of thought and action. Acta Psychologica, 60 (2), 193–210. 10.1016/0001-6918(85)90055-1 · DOI
  39. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376–400. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.2.376 11990323 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Mackie, M., Dam, N., & Fan, J. (2013). Cognitive control and attentional functions. Brain and Cognition, 82, 301–312. 10.1016/j.bandc.2013.05.004 23792472 PMC3722267 · DOI · Paper page
  42. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 2034749 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Macleod, C. M. (1998). Training on integrated versus separated Stroop tasks: The progression of interference and facilitation. Memory & Cognition, 26 (2), 201–211. 10.3758/BF03201133 9584429 · DOI · Paper page
  44. MacLeod, C. M., & MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (10), 383–391. 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01530-8 11025281 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Melton, A. W. (1970)Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80107-4
  46. Milliken, B., Thomson, D. R., Bleile, K., MacLellan, E., & Giammarco, M. (2012). Context-specific control and the Stroop negative priming effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65 (7), 1430–1448. 22502818
  47. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7 (3), 134–140. 12639695
  48. Monsell, S., Taylor, T. J., & Murphy, K. (2001). Naming the color of a word: Is it responses or task sets that compete? Memory & Cognition, 29 (1), 137–151. 10.3758/BF03195748 11277457 · DOI
  49. Moors, A. (2016). Automaticity: Componential, causal, and mechanistic explanations. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 263–287. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033550 26331343 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (2), 297–326. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297 16536645 · DOI
  51. Mordkoff, J. T., & Yantis, S. (1991). An interactive race model of divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 520–538. 10.1037/0096-1523.17.2.520 1830090 · DOI
  52. Morton, J., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Selective attention to words and colours. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 387–397. 10.1080/14640747308400360 · DOI
  53. Pardo, J. V., Pardo, P. J., Janer, K. W., & Raichle, M. E. (1990). The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87 (1), 256–259. 10.1073/pnas.87.1.256 2296583 PMC53241 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Parris, B. A., Hasshim, N., Wadsley, M., Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2022). The loci of Stroop effects: A critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional selection. Psychological Research, 86 (4), 1029–1053. 34389901 PMC9090875
  55. Posner, M. I. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. Attention and Performance (pp. 669–682). Academic Press.
  56. Sherman, S., Mumford, J., & Schnyer, D. (2015). Hippocampal activity mediates the relationship between circadian activity rhythms and memory in older adults. Neuropsychologia, 75, 617–625. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.07.020 26205911 · DOI
  57. Shichel, I., & Tzelgov, J. (2018). Modulation of conflicts in the Stroop effect. Acta Psychologica, 189, 93–102. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.10.007 29078981 · DOI
  58. Sohn, M.-H., Albert, M. V., Jung, K., Carter, C. S., & Anderson, J. R. (2007). Anticipation of conflict monitoring in the anterior cingulate cortex and the prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (25), 10330–10334. 10.1073/pnas.0703225104 PMC1965513 17563353 · DOI
  59. Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (5), 1398. 19803645
  60. Steyvers, M., Hawkins, G. E., Karayanidis, F., & Brown, S. D. (2019). A large-scale analysis of task switching practice effects across the lifespan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (36), 17735–17740. 10.1073/pnas.1906788116 PMC6731761 31427513 · DOI
  61. Tabibian, B., Upadhyay, U., De, A., Zarezade, A., Schölkopf, B., & Gomez-Rodriguez, M. (2019). Enhancing human learning via spaced repetition optimization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (10), 3988–3993. 10.1073/pnas.1815156116 PMC6410796 30670661 · DOI
  62. Tenison, C., & Anderson, J. R. (2016). Modeling the distinct phases of skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 749–767. 10.1037/xlm0000204 26551626 · DOI
  63. Tzelgov, J. (1997). Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: A theoretical note. Consciousness and Cognition, 6 (2), 441–451. 10.1006/ccog.1997.0303 9262422 · DOI
  64. Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological bulletin, 136 (4), 601. 20565170
  65. Von Bastian, C. C., & Druey, M. D. (2017). Shifting between mental sets: An individual differences approach to commonalities and differences of task switching components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146 (9), 1266. 28594189
  66. Yang, C. S., Cowan, N. J., & Haith, A. M. (2022). Control becomes habitual early on when learning a novel motor skill. Journal of Neurophysiology, 128 (5), 1278–1291. 10.1152/jn.00273.2022 36222408 · DOI
  67. Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). The effects of recent practice on task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 919–936. 10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.919 14585014 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Najenson, J., Zaks-Ohayon, R., Tzelgov, J., & Fresco, N.
Affiliations
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Corresponding author
Najenson, Jonathan
ORCID
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-01-25
Volume
53
Issue
6
Pages
1696-1707
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
DOI
10.3758/s13421-024-01677-7
PMC
PMC12401770
OpenAlex
W4406820508
Cited by
4
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2025-08-25)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Minerva Foundation
  • Israel Science Foundation (Grant 386/20)
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 task, task conflict, attentional control, cognitive flexibility, practice effects, training, interference, reaction time (psychology), Stroop interference
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Practice, Psychological, Reaction Time, Young Adult, Executive Function, 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