Event Abstract

Back to Event

The Effect of Working Memory on Stroop Performance

Suha Al-Hassan1* and Natasha Duell2*
  • 1 Emirates College for Advanced Education, Health, Counseling, and Special Education, United Arab Emirates
  • 2 Temple University, Psychology, United States

Working memory and response inhibition are two distinct, yet intertwined executive processes (Luna et al., 2001; McNab & Klingberg, 2008) critical for goal-directed behaviors (De Luca et al., 2003; Miller & Cohen, 2001). Broadly speaking, response inhibition involves suppressing automatic, reactive responses (Luna, 2009), whereas working memory involves the ability to maintain and manipulate information, as well as control and direct attention (Cowan et al., 2005; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001). The development of these processes relies strongly on the prefrontal cortex, which continues to develop into early adulthood (Casey, Giedd, & Thomas, 2000; Luna et al., 2001; Paulsen, Hallquist, Geier, & Luna, 2015). Generally, working memory is shown to mature in late adolescence (DeLuca et al., 2003; Huizinga, Dolan, & van der Molen, 2006; Luciana, Conklin, Hooper, & Yarger, 2005), whereas inhibitory control continues to mature into early adulthood (Davidson, Amso, Anderson, & Diamond, 2006; Luna et al., 2001; Velanova, Wheeler, & Luna, 2009). Since most executive functions, such as response inhibition and working memory, play distinct roles and develop along separate trajectories, the development and function of these processes have often been studied in isolation. However, there is evidence that response inhibition and working memory are concomitant processes, and that working memory is essential to successful response inhibition (Diamond, 2013; Luna et al., 2001). One task particularly well-suited for studying the relationship between response inhibition and working memory is the Stroop task (Long & Prat, 2002). In the Stroop task (MacLeod, 1991), participants are asked to quickly and accurately indicate the color in which a word is displayed while ignoring the word’s semantic meaning. The present study aimed at describing the developmental trajectories of accuracy and response time on the Stroop, determining how working memory facilitates Stroop performance, and examining whether the effect of working memory on Stroop performance differs across age groups. To address these aims, a sample from a large-scale investigation of more than 5,000 individuals between the ages of 10 and 30 (M = 17.05 years; SD = 5.91) from 11 countries was used. All individuals completed a computerized adaptation of the Stroop task (Banich et al., 2007) and a working memory task. The Stroop task employed in this study includes incongruent and neutral trials that are presented in two block types: one in which the presentation of both trial types is equal, and one in which the presentation of incongruent trials is rare. Comparing performance between blocks types allows inferences to be made about goal neglect, and is ideal for examining working memory differences in Stroop performance. Results indicate that Stroop performance does indeed differ across development and between working memory groups, and that the observed age differences depend upon working memory capacity. Within the high working memory group, response time becomes faster between 10-17 years, and then begins to slow between 18 and 30 years. Within the low working memory group, response time becomes faster between 10-21 years, and begins to slow between 22 and 30 years. Furthermore, whereas adult levels of accuracy are achieved relatively early among participants with high working memory (by 14-15 years), accuracy does not reach adult-like levels until 16-17 years among participants with low working memory.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an award to Laurence Steinberg from the Klaus J. Jacobs Foundation.

References

Banich, M., Crowley, T., Thompson, L., Jacobson, B., Liu, X., Raymond, K., & Claus, E. (2007). Brain activation during the Stroop task in adolescents with severe substance and conduct problems: A pilot study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 90, 175-182.
Casey, B. J., Giedd, J. N., & Thomas, K. M. (2000). Structural and functional brain development and its relation to cognitive development. Biological Psychology, 54, 241-257.
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Saults, J. S., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., et al. (2005). On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 42–100.
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2037-2078.
DeLuca, C. R., Wood, S. J., Anderson, V., Buchanan, J., Proffitt, T. M., Mahony, K., & Pantelis, C. (2003). Normative data from the Cantab I: Development of executive function over the lifespan. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 242-254.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2017-2036.
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183.
Long, D. L., & Prat, C. S. (2002). Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation. Memory & Cognition, 30, 294-301.
Luciana, M., Conklin, H. M., Hooper, C. J., & Yarger, R. S. (2005). The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control processes in adolescents. Child Development, 76, 697–712.
Luna, B., Thulborn, K. R., Munoz, D. P., Merriam, E. P., Garver, K. E., Minshew, N. J., Keshavan, M. S., Genovese, C. R., Eddy, W. F., & Sweeney, J. A. (2001). Maturation of widely distributed brain function subserves cognitive development. NeuroImage, 13, 786-793.
Luna, B. (2009). Developmental changes in cognitive control through adolescence. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 37, 233-278.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
McNab, F., & Klingberg, T. (2008). Prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia control access to working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 103–107.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex functioning. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.
Paulsen, D. J., Hallquist, M. N., Geier, C. F., & Luna, B. (2015). Effects of incentives, age, and behavior on brain activation during inhibitory control: A longitudinal fMRI study. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 105-115.
Velanova, K., Wheeler, M. E., & Luna, B. (2009). The maturation of task set-related activation supports late developmental improvements in inhibitory control. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 12558-12567.

Keywords: working memory, response inhibition, stroop performance, development, executive functions

Conference: 2nd International Conference on Educational Neuroscience, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 5 Mar - 6 Mar, 2017.

Presentation Type: Poster Presentation

Topic: Educational Neuroscience

Citation: Al-Hassan S and Duell N (2017). The Effect of Working Memory on Stroop Performance. Conference Abstract: 2nd International Conference on Educational Neuroscience. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2017.222.00024

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: 13 Feb 2017; Published Online: 11 Dec 2017.

* Correspondence:
Dr. Suha Al-Hassan, Emirates College for Advanced Education, Health, Counseling, and Special Education, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, salhassan@ecae.ac.ae
Dr. Natasha Duell, Temple University, Psychology, Philadelphia, United States, ntduell@temple.edu