Cargando…
What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood
A rich body of research concerns causes of Stroop effects plus applications of Stroop. However, several questions remain. We included assessment of errors with children and adults (N = 316), who sat either a task wherein each block employed only trials of one type (unmixed task) or where every block...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5516206/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27786354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12230 |
_version_ | 1783251122420449280 |
---|---|
author | Wright, Barlow C. |
author_facet | Wright, Barlow C. |
author_sort | Wright, Barlow C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | A rich body of research concerns causes of Stroop effects plus applications of Stroop. However, several questions remain. We included assessment of errors with children and adults (N = 316), who sat either a task wherein each block employed only trials of one type (unmixed task) or where every block comprised of a mix of the congruent, neutral, and incongruent trials. Children responded slower than adults and made more errors on each task. Contrary to some previous studies, interference (the difference between neutral and incongruent condition) showed no reaction time (RT) differences by group or task, although there were differences in errors. By contrast, facilitation (the difference between neutral and congruent condition) was greater in children than adults, and greater on the unmixed task than the mixed task. After considering a number of theoretical accounts, we settle on the inadvertent word‐reading hypothesis, whereby facilitation stems from children and the unmixed task promoting inadvertent reading particularly in the congruent condition. Stability of interference RT is explained by fixed semantic differences between neutral and incongruent conditions, for children versus adults and for unmixed versus mixed task. We conclude that utilizing two tasks together may reveal more about how attention is affected in other groups. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5516206 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55162062017-08-02 What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood Wright, Barlow C. Br J Psychol Original Articles A rich body of research concerns causes of Stroop effects plus applications of Stroop. However, several questions remain. We included assessment of errors with children and adults (N = 316), who sat either a task wherein each block employed only trials of one type (unmixed task) or where every block comprised of a mix of the congruent, neutral, and incongruent trials. Children responded slower than adults and made more errors on each task. Contrary to some previous studies, interference (the difference between neutral and incongruent condition) showed no reaction time (RT) differences by group or task, although there were differences in errors. By contrast, facilitation (the difference between neutral and congruent condition) was greater in children than adults, and greater on the unmixed task than the mixed task. After considering a number of theoretical accounts, we settle on the inadvertent word‐reading hypothesis, whereby facilitation stems from children and the unmixed task promoting inadvertent reading particularly in the congruent condition. Stability of interference RT is explained by fixed semantic differences between neutral and incongruent conditions, for children versus adults and for unmixed versus mixed task. We conclude that utilizing two tasks together may reveal more about how attention is affected in other groups. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-10-27 2017-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5516206/ /pubmed/27786354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12230 Text en © 2016 The Authors. British Journal of Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the British Psychological Society This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Wright, Barlow C. What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood |
title | What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood |
title_full | What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood |
title_fullStr | What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood |
title_full_unstemmed | What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood |
title_short | What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood |
title_sort | what stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5516206/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27786354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12230 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wrightbarlowc whatstrooptaskscantellusaboutselectiveattentionfromchildhoodtoadulthood |