Conflict monitoring · Inhibitory control

Stroop Test

Introduced by John Ridley Stroop in 1935, this test asks you to identify the ink color of a word while ignoring its meaning. When word and color disagree, interference is measurable — a gold-standard paradigm for conflict monitoring.

DifficultyExpert = strict academic parameters

Age band (for scoring reference)Not signed in (scores won't count toward profile)

Intermediate: 3s per stimulus, 36 trials, moderate pace.

A color word (e.g., "RED") appears in some ink color. Respond to the INK. If the word "RED" is printed in blue ink, press Blue.

History

No training records yet

References: Stroop (1935); MacLeod (1991).

Scientific basis

Stroop Test · scientific basis

Conflict monitoring & inhibitory control

Introduced by J. R. Stroop in his 1935 doctoral research — one of psychology's most cited interference paradigms. Standardized clinically by Golden (1978); synthesized by MacLeod (1991).

Expert-mode parameters

These are the standard parameters from the canonical paradigm (used by the "Expert" difficulty).

Parameter	Standard value	Source
Stimulus duration (Expert)	2000 ms / until response	MacLeod 1991 review recommended
Trial count	60 (short) / 300 (full)	Common experimental practice
Conditions	Congruent / Incongruent / Neutral (XXXX)	Stroop 1935 / Golden 1978
Condition ratio	Roughly 40/40/20	Common balanced design

Healthy-population norms (by age)

Typical healthy-population ranges; Stroop effect = RT_incongruent − RT_congruent. Thresholds derived from Van der Elst 2006 (Dutch n=1,856, ages 24-81) and Ikeda 2011 (Japanese children) mean/SD by age band; 'excellent' corresponds to mean − 1 SD. The Stroop effect is largest in children, smallest at 18-34 y, and rises again in older adults. Assessment mode matches your actual age.

Limitations： Primary sources are MacLeod 1991 (review) and Van der Elst 2006 (large adult normative sample — strong evidence). Children: Ikeda 2011 and Homack 2004 (ADHD meta-analysis). Stroop effect is highly sensitive to version (card vs. computerized, colour set, condition ratio), so cross-study comparisons are limited. Bands 14-17 y are interpolated from neighbours (flagged est in norms.ts). This module uses a 4-colour computerized version; thresholds may differ by 30-80 ms from manual card-based versions. Cross-reference with Flanker or Simon (also conflict-monitoring paradigms in this app).

Age band	Stroop effect Excellent (ms)	Accuracy mean	Stroop effect mean (ms)	Evidence
Age 8-9	≤ 170	~92%	~300	medium
Age 10-11	≤ 120	~94%	~220	medium
Age 12-13	≤ 95	~95%	~180	medium
Age 14-15	≤ 85	~96%	~160	weak (interp.)
Age 16-17	≤ 80	~96%	~150	weak (interp.)
Age 18-24	≤ 80	~97%	~145	strong
Age 25-34	≤ 82	~97%	~150	strong
Age 35-44	≤ 90	~96%	~160	medium
Age 45-54	≤ 100	~96%	~180	medium
Age 55-64	≤ 115	~95%	~210	medium
Age 65+	≤ 140	~94%	~260	medium

Standard output metrics

·Mean RT per condition — Congruent / incongruent / neutral separately
·Accuracy per condition — Guards against speed-accuracy trade-off
·Stroop effect (ΔRT) — Lower = stronger conflict resolution
·Facilitation effect — Neutral − congruent (usually small)

Citations

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol, 18(6), 643-662. DOI
Golden, C. J. (1978). Stroop Color and Word Test: A Manual for Clinical and Experimental Uses. Stoelting. Publisher
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychol Bull, 109(2), 163-203. DOI
Scarpina, F., & Tagini, S. (2017). The Stroop Color and Word Test. Front Psychol, 8, 557. DOI

All reference ranges come from published peer-reviewed literature. For personal training reference only — not a medical diagnosis. Full methodology: docs/PARADIGMS.md.

This tool is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute medical advice or a clinical diagnosis.