Event Abstract

Back to Event

Response-Stimulus Interval Duration Modulates Interference in the Stroop Task both in Children and Adults

Sophie Galer1, 2*, Rémy Schmitz2, Xavier De Tiège1, 2, Patrick Van Bogaert1 and Philippe Peigneux2
  • 1 Hôpital Erasme, LCFC- Laboratoire de Cartographie Fonctionnelle du Cerveau, Belgium
  • 2 Université Libre de Bruxelles, UR2NF- Neuropsychology and Functional Neuroimaging Research Unit, Belgium

Interference between reading a word naming a color and its printed color is a robust phenomenon in the Stroop task. Whether changes in duration of the interval between the subject’s response and the next stimulus (i.e. response-stimulus interval [RSI]) actually exert an effect on the size of the interference effect has not been systematically studied. Additionnaly, it remains uncertain how and whether RSI variations impact on interference effects to the same extent in adults and children. In the present study, we tested the effect of within-task RSI variations on interference in young children and young adults across two experiments. In the first experiment, we used fixed RSIs (1000, 1500 or 3000 milliseconds [ms] duration), whereas in the second experiment RSIs were randomly distributed within the 2000-5000 ms range. Results disclosed a robust interference effect in all experimental conditions. Also, the amplitude of the interference effect was higher at shortest RSI duration (1000 ms) both in adults and children, suggesting more effective inhibitory processses at longer RSI durations. We observed in both age groups faster responses at RSI durations above 3000 ms, independently of the stimuli categories, and slower responses in children than adults in all conditions.

Figure 1
Image

Acknowledgements

SG, RS and XDT are FRS-FNRS (Belgium) Research Fellows. This study was partially supported by a 2010-2015 ARC grant (“Pathophysiology of Brain Plasticity Processes”) from the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB).

References

(1) Stroop, J. R. (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experi¬mental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
(2) MacLeod, C. M. (1991) Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
(3) Leon-Carrion J., Garcia-Orza J., & Perez-Santamaria F. J. (2004) Development of the inhibitory component of the executive functions in children and adolescents. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 1291-1311.
(4) Wodka E.L., Simmonds D.J., Mahone E.M. & Mostofsky S.H. (2009) Moderate variability in stimulus presentation improves motor response control. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31,483–488.
(5) Ryan M., Martin R., Denckla M.B., Mostofsky S.H. & Mahone E.M. (2010) Interstimulus jitter facilitates response control in children with ADHD. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society,16(2),388–393.

Keywords: Stroop task, Response-Stimulus Interval, development, interference control, Children

Conference: Belgian Brain Council, Liège, Belgium, 27 Oct - 27 Oct, 2012.

Presentation Type: Poster Presentation

Topic: Higher Brain Functions in health and disease: cognition and memory

Citation: Galer S, Schmitz R, De Tiège X, Van Bogaert P and Peigneux P (2012). Response-Stimulus Interval Duration Modulates Interference in the Stroop Task both in Children and Adults. Conference Abstract: Belgian Brain Council. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2012.210.00098

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 23 Aug 2012; Published Online: 12 Sep 2012.

* Correspondence: Miss. Sophie Galer, Hôpital Erasme, LCFC- Laboratoire de Cartographie Fonctionnelle du Cerveau, Bruxelles, Belgium, sgaler@ulb.ac.be