Search

This article argues that the Stroop effect can be generated at a variety of stages from stimulus input to response selection. As such, there are multiple loci at which the Stroop effect occurs. Evidence for this viewpoint is provided by a review of neuroimaging studies that were specifically designed to isolate levels of interference in the Stroop task and the underlying neural systems that work to control the effects of interference at those levels. In particular, the evidence suggests that lateral prefrontal regions work to bias processing toward the task-relevant dimension of a Stroop stimulus (e.g., its color) and away from the task-irrelevant dimension (e.g., the meaning of the word). Medial prefrontal regions, in contrast, tend to be more involved in response-related and late-stage aspects of control. Importantly, it is argued that this control occurs in a cascade-like manner, such that the degree of control that is exerted at earlier stages influences the degree of control that needs to be exerted at later stages. As such, the degree of behavioral interference that is observed is the culmination of processing in specific brain regions as well as their interaction.

The brain is organized into a number of large networks based on shared function, for example, high-level cognitive functions (frontoparietal network), attentional capabilities (dorsal and ventral attention networks), and internal mentation (default network). The correlations of these networks during resting-state fMRI scans varies across individuals and is an indicator of individual differences in ability. Prior work shows higher cognitive functioning (as measured by working memory and attention tasks) is associated with stronger negative correlations between frontoparietal/attention and default networks, suggesting that increased ability may depend upon the diverging activation of networks with contrasting function. However, these prior studies lack specificity with regard to the higher-level cognitive functions involved, particularly with regards to separable components of executive function (EF). Here we decompose EF into three factors from the unity/diversity model of EFs: Common EF, Shifting-specific EF, and Updating-specific EF, measuring each via factor scores derived from a battery of behavioral tasks completed by 250 adult participants (age 28) at the time of a resting-state scan. We found the hypothesized segregated pattern only for Shifting-specific EF. Specifically, after accounting for one’s general EF ability (Common EF), individuals better able to fluidly switch between task sets have a stronger negative correlation between the ventral attention network and the default network. We also report non-predicted novel findings in that individuals with higher Shifting-specific abilities exhibited more positive connectivity between frontoparietal and visual networks, while those individuals with higher Common EF exhibited increased connectivity between sensory and default networks. Overall, these results reveal a new degree of specificity with regard to connectivity/EF relationships.

The present research examined the hypothesis that cognitive processes are modulated differentially by trait and state negative affect (NA). Brain activation associated with trait and state NA was measured by fMRI during an attentional control task, the emotion-word Stroop. Performance on the task was disrupted only by state NA. Trait NA was associated with reduced activity in several regions, including a prefrontal area that has been shown to be involved in top-down, goal-directed attentional control. In contrast, state NA was associated with increased activity in several regions, including a prefrontal region that has been shown to be involved in stimulus-driven aspects of attentional control. Results suggest that NA has a significant impact on cognition, and that state and trait NA disrupt attentional control in distinct ways.

The ability to engage in goal-directed behavior despite exposure to stress is critical to resilience. Questions of how stress can impair or improve behavioral functioning are important in diverse settings, from athletic competitions to academic testing to clinical therapy. Previous research suggests that controllability is a key factor in the impact of stress on behavior: learning how to control stressors buffers people from the negative effects of stress on subsequent cognitively demanding tasks. In addition, research suggests that the impact of stress on cognitive functioning depends on an individual’s response to stressors: moderate responses to stress can lead to improved performance while extreme (high or low) responses can lead to impaired performance. The present studies tested the hypothesis that 1) learning to behaviorally control stressors leads to improved performance on a test of general executive functioning, the color-word Stroop, and that 2) this improvement emerges specifically for people who report moderate (subjective) responses to stress. Experiment 1: Stroop performance, measured before and after a stress manipulation, was compared across groups of undergraduate participants (n=109). People who learned to control a noise stressor and received accurate performance feedback demonstrated reduced Stroop interference compared with people exposed to uncontrollable noise stress and feedback indicating an exaggerated rate of failure. In the group who learned behavioral control, those who reported moderate levels of stress showed the greatest reduction in Stroop interference. In contrast, in the group exposed to uncontrollable events, self-reported stress failed to predict performance. Experiment 2: In a second sample (n=90), we specifically investigated the role of controllability by keeping the rate of failure feedback constant across groups. In the group who learned behavioral control, those who reported moderate levels of stress showed the gre