The Stroop Negative Priming Matching Task: A New Task for the Direct Comparison of Interference Control and Inhibition

Abstract

Inhibition processing is an inherent part of cognitive and behavioral control. The aim of the present study was to develop and investigate psychometric criteria of an experimental paradigm that combines Stroop interference and negative priming, both of which involve inhibitory processes. We adopted a Stroop matching paradigm assessing interference control and implemented a negative priming condition. A nonclinical community sample of 94 volunteers performed this Stroop Negative Priming Matching paradigm. Since timing plays a role in priming, the interval between the prime and the probe has been varied in length (500 ms, 800 ms, and 3000 ms). The main results showed both, effects of Stroop interference and negative priming, as indicated by reaction times and incorrect responses. Reduced time pressure showed an effect on response speed and accuracy, but no interaction with interference and priming effects occurred. Reliability computed as internal consistency was generally high and did not differ between Stroop interference and negative priming scales. Retest-reliability was best for the prime–probe interval of 3000 ms. Concluding, the Stroop negative priming matching task provides reliable and directly comparable assessment of Stroop interference and negative priming effects.

Keywords

Stroop task negative priming interference inhibition interstimulus interval

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arulampalam

Booth

(1997). Who gets over the training hurdle? A study of the training experiences of young men and women in Britain. Journal of Population Economics, 10(2), 197-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001480050038

Banich

M. T.

(2019). The Stroop effect occurs at multiple points along a cascade of control: Evidence from cognitive neuroscience approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article e2164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02164

Bates

Maechler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0216410.18637/jss.v067.i01

Bauer

Gebhardt

Ruprecht

Gallhofer

Sammer

(2012). Neuroimaging evidence for processes underlying repetition of ignored stimuli. PLoS ONE, 7(5), Article e36089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036089

Brooks

M. E.

Kristensen

van Benthem

K. J.

Magnusson

Berg

C. W.

Nielsen

Skaug

H. J.

Maechler

Bolker

B. M.

(2017). glmm TMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R Journal, 9(2), 378-400. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066

Brysbaert

Stevens

(2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10

Chapman

L. J.

Chapman

J. P.

(1973). Problems in the measurement of cognitive deficit. Psychological Bulletin, 79(6), 380-385. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034541

Chapman

L. J.

Chapman

J. P.

(1978). The measurement of differential deficit. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 14(1-4), 303-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(78)90034-1

D’Angelo

M. C.

Thomson

D. R.

Tipper

S. P.

Milliken

(2016). Negative priming 1985 to 2015: A measure of inhibition, the emergence of alternative accounts, and the multiple process challenge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(10), 1890-1909. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1173077

10.

Frings

Schneider

K. K.

Fox

(2015). The negative priming paradigm: An update and implications for selective attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1577-1597. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0841-4

11.

Gamboz

Russo

Fox

(2002). Age differences and the identity negative priming effect: An updated meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 17(3), 525-531. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.17.3.525

12.

Hazeltine

Mordkoff

J. T.

(2014). Resolved but not forgotten: Stroop conflict dredges up the past. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article e1327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01327

13.

Judd

C. M.

Westfall

Kenny

D. A.

(2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 601-625. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702

14.

Kang

S. S.

MacDonald

A. W.

III . (2010). Limitations of true score variance to measure discriminating power: Psychometric simulation study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119(2), 300-306. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018400

15.

Lambert

(1992). Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics, 34(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1269547

16.

Langenecker

S.A.

Nielson

K.A.

Rao

S.M.

(2004). fMRI of healthy older adults during Stroop interference. Neuroimage, 21(1), 192-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.027

17.

Little

D. M.

Hartley

A. A.

(2000). Further evidence that negative priming in the Stroop color-word task is equivalent in older and younger adults. Psychology and Aging, 15(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.15.1.9

18.

Lüdecke

(2018). sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science. https://zenodo.org/record/2400856#.XhK56FUzbIU

19.

Macleod

C. M.

(1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163-203. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.109.2.163

20.

Marí-Beffa

Estévez

A. F.

Danziger

(2000). Stroop interference and negative priming: Problems with inferences from null results. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(3), 499-503. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214362

21.

Mayas

Fuentes

L. J.

Ballesteros

(2012). Stroop interference and negative priming (NP) suppression in normal aging. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 54(2), 333-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2010.12.012

22.

Milham

M.P.

Erickson

K.I.

Banich

M.T.

Kramer

A.F.

Webb

Wszalek

Cohen

N.J.

(2002). Attentional control in the aging brain: insights from an fMRI study of the stroop task. Brain and Cognition, 49(3), 277-296. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.2001.1501

23.

Mills

Kinoshita

Norris

(2019). No negative priming effect in the manual Stroop task. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article e1764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01764

24.

Min

Agresti

(2005). Random effect models for repeated measures of zero-inflated count data. Statistical Modelling, 5(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1191/1471082X05st084oa

25.

Miyake

Friedman

N. P.

Emerson

M. J.

Witzki

A. H.

Howerter

Wager

T. D.

(2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

26.

Neill

W. T.

Westberry

R. L.

(1987). Selective attention and the suppression of cognitive noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 327-334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.327

27.

Niemi

Näätänen

(1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 133-162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.133

28.

Penner

I. K.

Kobel

Stcklin

Weber

Opwis

Calabrese

(2012). The Stroop task: Comparison between the original paradigm and computerized versions in children and adults. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 26(7), 1142-1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2012.713513

29.

R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/

30.

Stroop

J. R.

(1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651

31.

Tipper

S. P.

(1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(4), 571-590. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748508400920

32.

Ungar

Nestor

P. G.

Niznikiewicz

M. A.

Wible

C. G.

Kubicki

(2010). Color Stroop and negative priming in schizophrenia: An fMRI study. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 181(1), 24-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2009.07.005

33.

Verhaeghen

Cerella

(2002). Aging, executive control, and attention: A review of meta-analyses. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 26(7), 849-857. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7634(02)00071-4

34.

Vitkovitch

Bishop

Dancey

Richards

(2002). Stroop interference and negative priming in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychologia, 40(9), 1570-1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00022-2

35.

Yaple

Arsalidou

(2017). Negative priming: A meta-analysis of fMRI studies. Experimental Brain Research, 235, 3367-3374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5065-6

36.

Zhu

Luo

DeSantis

S. M.

(2015). Zero-inflated count models for longitudinal measurements with heterogeneous random effects. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 26(4), 1774-1786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280215588224

37.

Zysset

Müller

Lohmann

Von Cramon

D. Y.

(2001). Color-word matching Stroop task: Separating interference and response conflict. NeuroImage, 13(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0665

38.

Zysset

Schroeter

M. L.

Neumann

Yves von Cramon

(2007). Stroop interference, hemodynamic response and aging: An event-related fMRI study. Neurobiology of Aging, 28(6), 937-946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.05.008