% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@INPROCEEDINGS{Mller:1031215,
      author       = {Müller, Veronika},
      title        = {{S}troop interference as a function of stimulus material,
                      presentation design, control condition, and cognitive
                      demand: {E}vidence from neuroimaging and behavioral
                      meta-analyses},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2024-05611},
      year         = {2024},
      abstract     = {One of the best-known paradigms to study interference
                      between cognitive processes isthe Stroop task1. Over time,
                      many variants of the task have evolved2, differing with
                      respectto stimulus material (e.g. color-word, picture-word
                      or number variants), control conditions(congruent or
                      neutral), presentation design (mixed or blocked), as well as
                      combinations withadditional cognitive demands. The neural
                      and behavioral impact of this variety, however, hasnever
                      been systematically assessed. We performed a series of
                      meta-analyses to synthesizebehavioral and neuroimaging
                      findings of studies implementing Stroop-type tasks and
                      toinvestigate commonalities and differences between
                      different versions. In total, the coordinate-based
                      meta-analyses included 133 neuroimaging experiments, which
                      reported 164 effect sizesfor inclusion in the behavioral
                      analyses. Results revealed little impact of task variations
                      on themean effect size of reaction time (¯g=0.64 across all
                      164 effect sizes, CI = 0.56-0.73). Neurally,incongruence
                      processing in the classic color-word Stroop variant
                      consistently recruited regionsof the multiple-demand
                      network, with some modulation of spatial convergence by
                      stimulusmaterial, control condition, design, and cognitive
                      demand. In line with the view of a “many-to-one
                      mapping”3, our results suggest that the seemingly unitary
                      behavioral costs of Stroop-type conflicts may arise from
                      partly different neural processing mechanisms, depending
                      oncontextual factors. The impact of different features of
                      the task should therefore be carefullyconsidered when
                      planning or interpreting Stroop-type experiments, especially
                      in clinical orother applied fields.[1] Stroop, JR (1935).
                      J.Exp.Psychol., 18:643-662.[2] McLeod, CM (1991). Psychol.
                      Bull., 109 (2):163-203.[3] Westlin, C, et al. (2023). TiCS,
                      27(3):246-257},
      month         = {Sep},
      date          = {2024-09-16},
      organization  = {53rd DGPs Congress/15th ÖGP
                       Conference, Vienna (Austria), 16 Sep
                       2024 - 19 Sep 2024},
      subtyp        = {After Call},
      cin          = {INM-7},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {5253 - Neuroimaging (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)24},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1031215},
}