Chronic cannabis users show altered neurophysiological functioning on Stroop task conflict resolution

2010 ◽  
Vol 212 (4) ◽  
pp. 613-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Battisti ◽  
Steven Roodenrys ◽  
Stuart J. Johnstone ◽  
Nicole Pesa ◽  
Daniel F. Hermens ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Benjamin A. Parris ◽  
Michael G. Wadsley ◽  
Gizem Arabaci ◽  
Nabil Hasshim ◽  
Maria Augustinova ◽  
...  

AbstractPrevious work investigating the effect of rTMS of left Dorso-Lateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) on Stroop task performance reports no changes to the Stroop effect but reduced reaction times on both congruent and incongruent trials relative to sham stimulation; an effect attributed to an enhanced attentional (or task) set for colour classification. The present study tested this account by investigating whether, relative to vertex stimulation, rTMS of the left DLPFC modifies task conflict, a form of conflict that arises when task sets for colour classification and word reading compete, given that this particular type of conflict would be reduced by an enhanced task set for colour classification. Furthermore, the present study included measures of other forms of conflict present in the Stroop task (response and semantic conflict), the potential effects on which would have been hidden in previous studies employing only incongruent and congruent stimuli. Our data showed that left DLPFC stimulation had no effect on the magnitude of task conflict, nor did it affect response, semantic or overall conflict (where the null is supported by sensitive Bayes Factors in most cases). However, consistent with previous research left DLPFC stimulation had the general effect of reducing reaction times. We, therefore, show for the first time that relative to real vertex stimulation left DLPFC stimulation does not modify Stroop interference. Alternative accounts of the role of the left DLPFC in Stroop task performance in which it either modifies response thresholds or facilitates responding by keeping the correct response keys active in working memory are discussed.


2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 913-927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Entel ◽  
Joseph Tzelgov ◽  
Yoella Bereby-Meyer ◽  
Nitzan Shahar

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e75701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro A. Magalhães De Saldanha da Gama ◽  
Hichem Slama ◽  
Emilie A. Caspar ◽  
Wim Gevers ◽  
Axel Cleeremans

2013 ◽  
Vol 66 (7) ◽  
pp. 1356-1367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyal Kalanthroff ◽  
Liat Goldfarb ◽  
Marius Usher ◽  
Avishai Henik

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Rispens ◽  
Karen A. Jehn

The versatility of intrateam conflict. Construction and test of a Dutch instrument for measuring team conflict types and conflict dimensions The versatility of intrateam conflict. Construction and test of a Dutch instrument for measuring team conflict types and conflict dimensions Conflicts occur frequently within teams. These conflicts may deal with different issues such as disagreements about the task (task conflict), disagreements about personal issues (relationship conflict), and about the distribution of responsibilities (process conflict). In this study, we present the Dutch translation and test of an instrument that aims to measure the distinct dimensions of the above mentioned conflict types. The results showed that for each type of conflict, four dimensions can be distinguished: importance of the issue, negative emotions, open conflict norms, and conflict resolution efficacy. Reliabilities and validity of the instrument were examined and largely supported by the data. Implications for future research and organizational practice are discussed.


2009 ◽  
Vol 1253 ◽  
pp. 139-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gjurgjica Badzakova-Trajkov ◽  
Kylie J. Barnett ◽  
Karen E. Waldie ◽  
Ian J. Kirk

Author(s):  
Benjamin A. Parris ◽  
Nabil Hasshim ◽  
Michael Wadsley ◽  
Maria Augustinova ◽  
Ludovic Ferrand

AbstractDespite instructions to ignore the irrelevant word in the Stroop task, it robustly influences the time it takes to identify the color, leading to performance decrements (interference) or enhancements (facilitation). The present review addresses two questions: (1) What levels of processing contribute to Stroop effects; and (2) Where does attentional selection occur? The methods that are used in the Stroop literature to measure the candidate varieties of interference and facilitation are critically evaluated and the processing levels that contribute to Stroop effects are discussed. It is concluded that the literature does not provide clear evidence for a distinction between conflicting and facilitating representations at phonological, semantic and response levels (together referred to as informational conflict), because the methods do not currently permit their isolated measurement. In contrast, it is argued that the evidence for task conflict as being distinct from informational conflict is strong and, thus, that there are at least two loci of attentional selection in the Stroop task. Evidence suggests that task conflict occurs earlier, has a different developmental trajectory and is independently controlled which supports the notion of a separate mechanism of attentional selection. The modifying effects of response modes and evidence for Stroop effects at the level of response execution are also discussed. It is argued that multiple studies claiming to have distinguished response and semantic conflict have not done so unambiguously and that models of Stroop task performance need to be modified to more effectively account for the loci of Stroop effects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document