↓ Skip to main content

Different Measures of Auditory and Visual Stroop Interference and Their Relationship to Speech Intelligibility in Noise

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Different Measures of Auditory and Visual Stroop Interference and Their Relationship to Speech Intelligibility in Noise
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00230
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Knight, Antje Heinrich

Abstract

Inhibition-the ability to suppress goal-irrelevant information-is thought to be an important cognitive skill in many situations, including speech-in-noise (SiN) perception. One way to measure inhibition is by means of Stroop tasks, in which one stimulus dimension must be named while a second, more prepotent dimension is ignored. The to-be-ignored dimension may be relevant or irrelevant to the target dimension, and the inhibition measure-Stroop interference (SI)-is calculated as the reaction time difference between the relevant and irrelevant conditions. Both SiN perception and inhibition are suggested to worsen with age, yet attempts to connect age-related declines in these two abilities have produced mixed results. We suggest that the inconsistencies between studies may be due to methodological issues surrounding the use of Stroop tasks. First, the relationship between SI and SiN perception may differ depending on the modality of the Stroop task; second, the traditional SI measure may not account for generalized slowing or sensory declines, and thus may not provide a pure interference measure. We investigated both claims in a group of 50 older adults, who performed two Stroop tasks (visual and auditory) and two SiN perception tasks. For each Stroop task, we calculated interference scores using both the traditional difference measure and methods designed to address its various problems, and compared the ability of these different scoring methods to predict SiN performance, alone and in combination with hearing sensitivity. Results from the two Stroop tasks were uncorrelated and had different relationships to SiN perception. Changing the scoring method altered the nature of the predictive relationship between Stroop scores and SiN perception, which was additionally influenced by hearing sensitivity. These findings raise questions about the extent to which different Stroop tasks and/or scoring methods measure the same aspect of cognition. They also highlight the importance of considering additional variables such as hearing ability when analyzing cognitive variables.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 35 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 16%
Neuroscience 15 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 41 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,171,423
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,180
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,369
of 334,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#426
of 539 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 539 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.