Dynamics of a Stroop matching task: Effect of alcohol and reversal with training.

Abstract

Using a Stroop matching task, we evaluated how alcohol affects the time needed to overcome Stroop conflict and whether practice might reverse the effect of alcohol. Participants (n = 16) performed two sessions in which they had to compare the color of a color-word with the meaning of a color-word in neutral color. The two task stimuli were presented simultaneously or with a Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) of 200, 500, or 800 ms. For half of the subjects, alcohol was administered in the first session, and for the other half, alcohol was administered in the second session. The results showed that the Stroop effect was significant at the 0 and 200 ms intervals in the sober subjects. Moreover, in untrained intoxicated individuals, interference endured until the 500 ms interval, a result that was abolished in trained intoxicated subjects. In conclusion, alcohol increased the time needed for Stroop matching task conflict resolution. However, this deleterious effect was minimized by a previous practice session.

Use of Computerized Neurocognitive Assessment Software for the Detection of Alcohol Intoxication

“…The correlation between performance changes on the digit symbol substitution assessment and BAC levels is consistent with prior work that has shown impaired performance on the digit symbol substitution test with acute consumption of alcohol (Thapar et al, 1995). Additionally, the correlations observed between reaction time in the Stroop assessment and BAC levels are also consistent with impaired performance in previous studies (David et al, 2011). However, while we found significant differences in performance on Trails A, the previous work has observed only significant deficits in performance on Trails B, which is a more complex task than Trails A (Day et al, 2013).…”

On the Mismeasurement of Impulsivity: Trait, Behavioral, and Neural Models in Alcohol Research among Adolescents and Young Adults

“…Continuous performance task Moderate to high doses of alcohol lead to impaired responding in a continuous performance task and a stop signal task [73,155] Evidence is mixed about whether the effects of alcohol are specific to impulsive responding or also affect reaction time and correct detection [156,157] Training [158], behavioral reinforcement [159], caffeine [159], and likelihood of punishment [156] may attenuate the effect of alcohol on performance of a go/no-go task and a go-stop task Few to no associations found between performance in a go-stop task and stop signal task and alcohol use or problems [160,161] Impaired performance on a continuous performance task and go-stop task shown in populations with long and severe alcohol use histories [71,162] Go/no-go task Stroop task Go-stop task Antisaccade task All alcohol administration studies exclude adolescents. In general, these effects have been demonstrated both for young adults and/or college students and among adults, with one exception (indicated *) b Associations between task performance and alcohol use are usually demonstrated both for young adults and/or college students and among adults c This study specifically examined adolescents aged [16][17][18] in assessing uncertainty, with activation typically increased as risk increases and prefrontal control regions being engaged as risky choices are inhibited [88][89][90][91].…”

Two distinct patterns of interference in between-attribute Stroop matching tasks

“…Only studies using SMTs as described by Treisman and Fearnley (1969) are shown (for other versions, see, e.g., Durgin, 2003;Flowers, 1975;Mascolo & Hirtle, 1990). a David, Volchan, Alfradique et al (2011); David, Volchan, Vila et al (2011); Menz et al (2006); Mitchell (2006); Norris et al (2002); Schroeter et al (2002); Schroeter et al (2003); Schroeter et al (2004); Yanagisawa et al (2010); Zysset et al (2001); Zysset et al (2007). b Kim et al (2005).…”