Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan


  • Anna MacKay-BrandtEmail author
  • Tina Trudel
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1312


Irrelevant information that enters the focus of attention and impairs performance.

Current Knowledge

Related to Automatic Processing of Task-Irrelevant Information (e.g., Flanker and Stroop Effects)

The basic principle of the Stroop effect (Stroop 1935) is that irrelevant information from one dimension of the stimulus to be processed interferes with the task performance related to a different dimension. This can be observed by contrasting two conditions in which the irrelevant dimension is either congruent or incongruent with the desired response in the primary dimension. For example, the classic effect involves color naming, and it is observed that when a color word is presented, the speed to name the color of the ink is faster when the word and the color (“red” presented in red ink) are compatible compared with when the word and the color are incompatible (“red” presented in blue ink). The Stroop effect is not limited to color naming. Researchers have investigated the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Readings

  1. Casey, B. J., Thomas, K. M., Welsh, T. F., Badagaiyan, R. D., Eccard, C. H., Jennings, J. R., & Crone, E. A. (2000). Dissociation of response conflict, attentional selection, and expectancy with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 8728–8733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colcombe, S. J., Kramer, A. F., Erickson, K. L., Scalf, P., McAuley, E., Cohen, N. J., Webb, A., Jerome, G. J., Marquez, D. X., & Elavsky, S. (2004). Cardiovascular fitness, cortical plasticity, and aging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(9), 3316–3321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non- search task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Francolini, C. M., & Egeth, H. E. (1980). On the nonautomaticity of automatic activation: Evidence of selective seeing. Perception and Psychophysics, 27, 331–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. MacLeod, C. M. (1992). The Stroop task: The “gold standard” of attentional measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. May, C. P., Hasher, L., & Kane, M. J. (1999). The role of interference in memory span. Memory and Cognition, 27(5), 759–767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Seymour, P. H. K. (1973). Stroop interference in naming and verifying spatial locations. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric ResearchOrangeburgUSA
  2. 2.Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer’s Disease and the Aging BrainColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Northeast Evaluation Specialists, PLLCDoverUSA