Stroop Task
Participants report the ink colour of a printed word while ignoring the word's meaning. When the word names a different colour than its ink (incongruent, e.g. RED in blue ink) responses are slower and less accurate than when word and ink agree (congruent). The cost indexes selective attention and the inhibition of a prepotent reading response.
- Defining contrast
stroop-effect-rt (condition-difference)- Family
- congruency
- Human review
- sourced — unreviewed
- Executable test
- verify:task — an implementation can be driven and judged against this spec
- Schema
- spec version 1
- Catalog entry
- Stroop Task in the paradigm catalog
Where this spec stands
This record is sourced. The ladder below is the human-review axis
only — a passing executable test never moves a record up it.
sourcedLiterature-linked, drafted with LLM assistance or by a contributor, and unreviewed. The honest default.corroboratedIndependently cross-checked against the cited sources, but not signed by a named expert.expert-annotatedAll three claims attested by named experts. Derived, never self-declared.contestedA named expert disputes at least one claim. A real outcome, kept visible.
Implementations driven through this spec
| Implementation | Platform | Verdict | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| onlineworkshopstroop (dejan.draschkow) | Pavlovia / PsychoJS | conforms | a classic 3-colour Stroop; same validator/analysis as the Flanker — the contract is framework-agnostic |
Origin reference
- Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. doi:10.1037/h0054651
Review this specification
Three separable claims: does the contrast identify the paradigm, is it a defensible measure of the named construct, and are the psychometric numbers correctly conditioned? Attest one, contest another — a split outcome is a real result.