ArticleEffects of caffeine, practice, and mode of presentation on stroop task performance
References (7)
- et al.
High doses of caffeine impair performance of the Stroop task in men
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1989) - et al.
Action profiles of smoking and caffeine: Stroop effect, EEG, and peripheral physiology
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1992) - et al.
Psychopharmacological profile of caffeine
Cited by (42)
Increasing familiarity with the heartbeat counting task does not affect performance
2023, Biological PsychologyEffects of Stroop task duration on subsequent cognitive and physical performance
2023, Psychology of Sport and ExerciseEffects of heat strain on cognitive function among a sample of miners
2022, Applied ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :Stroop also seems to be susceptible to a substantial learning effect, demonstrated in our study by significant improvements in speed from day 1 to day 2. A practice-related reduction in size of interference effect has also been reported in previous studies (Beglinger et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2013; Davidson et al., 2003; Edwards et al., 1996). Practice effects could mask the impact of heat exposure on performance, decreasing the usefulness of this test for studies in which participants are required to perform cognitive tests multiple times.
No evidence for the reduction of task competition and attentional adjustment during task-switching practice
2020, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :There exists a number of studies focusing on practice effects in experimental paradigms tapping on conflict processing. For example, color Stroop task practice results in an increased practice-related reduction of reaction times (RTs) in incongruent trials versus RTs in congruent trial and thus a reduction of the color Stroop effect (e.g., Davidson, Zacks, & Williams, 2003; Dotson, Sozda, Marsiske, & Perlstein, 2013; Dulaney & Rogers, 1994; Edwards, Brice, Craig, & Penri-Jones, 1996; Ellis, Woodley-Zanthos, Dulaney, & Palmer, 1989; Flowers & Stoup, 1977; Macleod, 1998; MacLeod & Dunbar, 1988; Reisberg, Baron, & Kemler, 1980; Roe, Wilsoncroft, & Griffiths, 1980; Rogers & Fisk, 1991; Wilkinson & Yang, 2012). A comparable pattern of results (i.e., increased practice-related reduction of incongruent trial RTs than on congruent trial RTs) was also evident in a number version of the Stroop task (Bush et al., 1998).
Investigating the effects of caffeine on executive functions using traditional Stroop and a new ecologically-valid virtual reality task, the Jansari assessment of Executive Functions (JEF<sup>©</sup>)
2016, AppetiteCitation Excerpt :However, there was no significant interaction between condition and congruency suggesting that this effect relates more to an increase in basic processing speed or reaction time, rather than a specific enhancement of the Stroop interference effect. This is consistent with Edwards et al. (1996) who failed to find an effect of caffeine using both the computerised and traditional card versions of the Stroop task, but differs from results found by others (e.g. Dawkins, Shahzad, Ahmed, & Edmonds, 2011; Hasenfratz & Battig, 1992; Kenemans et al., 1999). Such discrepancies in findings could be related to task presentation (Kenemans et al., 1999) and practice effects (Edwards et al., 1996), or even the validity of the test itself (Jansari et al., 2014).
The effect of practice on random number generation task: A transcranial direct current stimulation study
2014, Neurobiology of Learning and MemoryCitation Excerpt :Interestingly, the pattern of practice-related improvement in interference was similar to the one observed in the present study for seriation and repetition measures, with the greatest effect occurring early in practice (Table 1: Quadratic on-line effect column and Interaction column). While the impact of practice has been widely demonstrated in Stroop task performance (Edwards, Brice, Craig, & Penri-Jones, 1996), only few studies have investigated such impact on RNG task. A practice-related effect was showed by Evans and Graham (1980).