CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Historical and Modern Theater StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychological Testing and Assessment

A computerized stroop test for the evaluation of psychotropic drugs in healthy participants

Open access
Pilli, Raveendranadh, MUR, Naidu, Pingali, Usha Rani, Shobha, J. C., Reddy, A. Praveen·2013·Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine
DOI 10.4103/0253-7176.116251PMC PMC3775051
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Stroop paradigm evaluates susceptibility to interference and is sensitive to dysfunction in frontal lobes and drug effects. The aim of the present study was to establish a simple and reliable computerized version of Stroop color-word test, which can be used for screening of various psychotropic drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The standardized method was followed in all cases, by recording the reaction time (RT) in msec in 24 healthy participants using computerized version of Stroop color-word test. Reproducibility of the test procedure was evaluated by recording the RTs by a single experimenter on two sessions (interday reproducibility). Validity of the model was further tested by evaluating the psychotropic effect of Zolpidem 5 mg, Caffeine 500 mg, or Placebo on 24 healthy subjects in a randomized, double blind three-way crossover design. RESULTS: The method was found to produce low variability with coefficient of variation less than 10%. Interday reproducibility was very good as shown by Bland-Altman plot with most of the values within ±2SD. There was a significant increase in RTs in Stroop performance with Zolpidem at 1 hr and 2 hrs; in contrast, caffeine significantly decreased RTs in Stroop performance at 1 hr only compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: The Stroop color-word recording and analysis system is simple, sensitive to centrally acting drug effects, and has potential for future experimental psychomotor assessment studies.

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 · 10.4103/0253-7176.116251

Cites

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 [55]

    The Results report interday reproducibility of Stroop reaction time with a coefficient of variation below 10%, broadly consistent with the cited ∼8% figure. The paper does not give an 8% value, quantify typical learning gains, or address IGT net scores or their 3–7% variation; it also cannot establish whether the citing study’s pre- to post-heating change exceeded those benchmarks. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. [2]Spieler DH Balota DA Faust ME Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer's type J Exp Psychol 1996 22 461 79 8934854
  2. [4]Henik A Paying attention to the Stroop effect? J Int Neuropsychol Soc 1996 2 467 70 9375172
  3. [5]Rafal R Henik A Dagenbach D Carr TH The neurology of inhibition: Integrating controlled and automatic processes Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory, and Language 1994 San Diego Academic Press 1 52
  4. [6]Rebai M Bernard C Lannou J The Stroop's test evokes a negative brain potential, the N400 Int J Neurosci 1997 91 85 94 9394217
  5. [7]West R Alain C Age-related decline in inhibitory control contributes to the increased Stroop effect in older adults Psychophysiology 2000 37 179 89 10731768
  6. [9]Foreman N Barraclough S Moore C Mehta A Madon M High doses of caffeine impair performance of a numerical version of the Stroop task in men, Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1989 32 399 403 2726998
  7. [10]Hasenfratz M Battig K Action profiles of smoking and caffeine: Stroop effect, EEG, and peripheral physiology Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1992 42 155 61 1528938
  8. [11]Parrott A Wesnes K Promethazine, scopolamine and cinnarizine: Comparative time course of psychological performance effects Psychopharmacology 1987 92 513 9 3114803
  9. [12]Wesnes K Revell A The separate and combined effects of scopolamine and nicotine on human information processing Psychopharmacology 1984 84 5 11 6436890
  10. [13]Van der Elst W Van Boxtel MP Van Breukelen GJ Jolles J The Stroop Color-Word Test- Influence of Age, Sex and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range Assessments 2006 13 67 79 16443719
  11. [14]Rogers RD Robbins TW Investigating the neurocognitive deficits associated with chronic drug misuse Curr Opin Neurobiol 2001 11 250 7 11301247
  12. [15]Comalli PE Jr Wapner S Werner H Interference effects of Stroop color-word test in childhood, adulthood and ageing J Gen Psychol 1962 100 47 53 13880724
  13. [16]Spreen O Strauss E A compendium of neuropsychological tests 1998 New York Oxford University Press
  14. [17]Dyer FN The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes Mem Cogn 1973 1 106 20 24214501
  15. [18]Dunbar K MacLeod CM A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words J Exp Psychol 1984 10 622 39 6238123
  16. [19]MacLeod CM Dunbar K Training and stroop-like interference: Evidence for a continuum of automaticity J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1988 14 126 35 2963892
  17. [20]Desager JP Hulhoven R Harvengt C Hermann P Guillet P Thiercelin JF Possible interactions between zolpidem, a new sleep inducer and chlorpromazine, a phenothiazine neuroleptic Psychopharmacology 1988 96 63 6 3147477
  18. [21]Boulenger JP Squillace K Simon P Herrou M Leymarie P Zarifian E Buspirone and diazepam: Comparison of subjective, psychomotor and biological effects Neuropsychobiology 1989 22 83 9 2701745
  19. [22]Griffiths AN Jones DM Richens A Zopiclone produces effects on human performance similar to flurazepam, lormetazepam and triazolam Br J Clin Pharmacol 1986 21 647 53 2874822 PMC1400986
  20. [23]Jensen AR Rohwer WD The Stroop color word task: A review Acta Psychol 1966 25 36 93 5328883
  21. [24]Provost SC Woodward R Effects of nicotine gum on repeated administration of the Stroop test Psychopharmacology 1991 104 536 40 1780425
  22. [25]Mair RG McEntee WJ Cognitive enhancement in Korsakoff’ spsychosis by clonidine: A comparison with L-dopa and ephedrine Psychopharmacology 1986 88 374 80 3083458
  23. [26]Kenemans JL Wieleman JS Zeegers M Verbaten MN Caffeine and stroop interference Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1999 63 589 98 10462187
  24. [27]Patat A Rosenzweig P Enslen M Trocherie S Miget N Bozon MC Effects of a new slow release formulation of caffeine on EEG, psychomotor and cognitive functions in sleep-deprived subjects Hum Psychopharmacol 2000 15 153 70 12404329
  25. [28]Edwards S Brice C Craig C Penri-Jones R Effects of caffeine, practice, and mode of presentation on Stroop task performance Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1996 54 309 15 8743589
  26. [29]Arnett PA Rao SM Bemardin MS Grafman J Yetkin FZ Lobeck L Relationship between frontal lobe lesions and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in patients with multiple sclerosis Neurology 1994 44 420 5 8145908
  27. [30]Regard M Spreen O Strauss E Cognitive rigidity and flexibility: A neuropsychological study A compendium of neuropsychological tests 1998 Oxford, MA Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pilli, R., MUR, N., Pingali, U. R., Shobha, J. C., & Reddy, A. P.
Affiliations
Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
Corresponding author
Pilli, Raveendranadh
Venue
Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-04
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
180-189
ISSN
  • 0253-7176 (ISSN-L)
  • 0975-1564
DOI
10.4103/0253-7176.116251
PMC
PMC3775051
OpenAlex
W2042007751
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Indian Council of Medical Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Stroop task, psychotropic drugs, zolpidem, caffeine, reaction time, interference, frontal lobe function, psychomotor assessment, healthy volunteers

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