# Age-related changes in attentional selection: revealing processes underlying the degradation of task set quality

Mariana Burca, Nabil Hasshim, Pierre Chausse, David Clarys, Ludovic Ferrand, François Maquestiaux, Benjamin A Parris, Laetitia Silvert, Maria Augustinova

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Mariana Burca, Nabil Hasshim, Pierre Chausse, David Clarys, Ludovic Ferrand, et al. Age-related changes in attentional selection: revealing processes underlying the degradation of task set quality. Psychological Research, 2025, 89, pp.57. 10.1007/s00426-025-02087-3. hal-04969540

HAL Id: hal-04969540

https://hal.science/hal-04969540v1

Submitted on 27 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Age-Related Changes in Attentional Selection: Revealing Processes Underlying
the Degradation of Task Set Quality

Mariana Burca¹,²*, Nabil Hasshim³, Pierre Chausse², David Clarys⁴, Ludovic Ferrand², François Maquestiaux¹, Benjamin A. Parris⁵, Laetitia Silvert², and Maria Augustinova¹*

¹Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, CRFDP, Rouen, France

²Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LAPSCO, Clermont-Ferrand, France

³Department of Psychology, University of Salford, Salford, UK

⁴CeRCA, Université de Tours, Université de Poitiers, CNRS, Tours, Poitiers, France

⁵Department of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK

Burca, M. et al. (2025). Age-related changes in attentional selection: revealing processes underlying the degradation of task set quality. *Psychological Research* **89**, 57.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02087-3

**Running head:** Age-Related Changes in Attentional Selection

**Word count:** 6,920

*Corresponding authors:

Mariana Burca
Université de Rouen Normandie and Université Clermont Auvergne
Centre de Recherche sur les Fonctionnements et Dysfonctionnements Psychologiques (CRFDP,
EA 7475)
UFR SHS – Bâtiment Freinet, Place Emile Blondel, 76821 Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, FRANCE
E-mail: mariana.burca2@univ-rouen.fr
or

Maria Augustinova
Université de Rouen Normandie
Centre de Recherche sur les Fonctionnements et Dysfonctionnements Psychologiques (CRFDP,
EA 7475),
UFR SHS – Bâtiment Freinet, Place Emile Blondel, 76821 Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, FRANCE
E-mail: maria.augustinova@univ-rouen.fr
**Abstract**

The present study further explored the age-related changes in attentional selection, first reported by Jackson and Balota (2013). To this end, response stimulus interval (RSI) was manipulated in a Stroop paradigm that allows to isolate different components of the overall Stroop effect. The originally reported reduction of the overall Stroop effect in short (vs. long) RSI was successfully replicated. In line with the original claim that the ability to maintain the relevant task set consistently across time is preserved in older adults, this reduction failed to interact again with age – a null result that was uniquely supported in the present study with Bayesian evidence.

Although healthy aging affected all components of the overall Stroop effect, the present study further identified interference and a disproportionally larger semantic conflict effect, as being the primary mechanisms behind the larger overall Stroop effect that older adults produce compared to younger adults. These results therefore directly fuel the original conclusion of Jackson and Balota (2013) that age-related differences in attentional selection are due the degradation of task set quality, namely a lesser ability of older adults to control interference. The present study additionally showed this reduced control of interference directly and identified where in the processing stream it occurs. The immediate implication that challenges the dominant unitary models of Stroop performance, is that future interventions designed to boost interference control in older adults should most likely target semantic, as opposed to response conflict.

**Keywords**

Aging, Attention, Response-Stimulus Interval, Stroop effect, Task set.
Introduction

Older adults usually display poorer performance on interference tasks than their younger counterparts. For instance, in the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935) – requiring individuals to identify, as quickly and accurately as possible, the font color of color words without reading them – older adults experience greater interference from irrelevant word-reading. While in both age-groups, color-identification of incongruent stimuli (e.g., *BLUE* displayed in green; *BLUE*<sub>green</sub>) is longer than that of baseline stimuli (e.g., *BLUE*<sub>blue</sub>/*DEAL*<sub>green</sub>), the magnitude of this difference – called the *Stroop effect* – is larger in older compared to younger adults. Because these differences persist even after controlling for general slowing (e.g., Bugg et al., 2007; Spieler et al., 1996; see also e.g., Nicosia et al., 2021 for a metanalysis), they are taken as evidence that the ability to attend to and process only certain things in the environment while simultaneously ignoring others (i.e., attentional selection), changes with healthy aging (see e.g., Ruthruff & Lien, 2016 for a broader discussion).

Jackson and Balota (2013) attempted to uncover processes causing these age-related
differences in attentional selection. To this end, they compared the performance of older and
younger adults in spatial (Experiment 1) and color-word (Experiment 2, see above) Stroop tasks,
while also manipulating the time between the individual’s previous response and the presentation
of a new Stroop stimulus (i.e., response-stimulus interval, RSI). In the short 200ms RSI,
magnitudes of the Stroop effects were substantially reduced, compared to the more standard RSI
of 2000ms (resulting in Congruency × RSI interaction in both experiments). Since RSI
determines how long the relevant task set (e.g., color-naming in the Stroop task) needs to be
maintained between trials, and therefore whether the successful application of this task set on
trial N-1 can easily persist (under short RSIs) or not (under long RSIs) to trial N (De Jong et al.,
1999), the reduction of Stroop effects in the short RSI is best interpreted as a consequence of reduced degradation of the relevant task set over time. Interestingly however, in neither experiment, was an interaction between congruency, RSI, and Age-Group found. If older adults (in comparison to young ones) had found it more difficult to maintain a focus on the relevant task dimension across time, it would have resulted in greater Stroop effects for the older compared to the younger adults in the long (vs. short) RSI condition (resulting in 3-way Congruency × RSI × Age-Group interaction). These results led Jackson and Balota (2013) to argue that the ability to maintain the relevant task set across time is preserved in older adults. And since magnitudes of the Stroop effects were greater in the older compared to younger adults to a comparable extent in both RSI conditions (resulting in additional Congruency × Age-Group interactions), they attributed age-related changes in attentional selection to a lowered quality of the task set, namely a lowered ability of older adults to control interference from an irrelevant task set.

Although replicated across two experiments, the absence of Congruency × RSI × Age-Group interaction – substantially fueling Jackson and Balota (2013)'s claim that the ability to maintain the relevant task set consistently across time is preserved in older adults – was only demonstrated with standard frequentist ANOVAs. Therefore, the first goal of the present study was to replicate the pattern of results depicted above and to assess the relevance of null results (namely the crucial absence of the 3-way interaction) with the additional Bayesian evidence.

As in De Jong et al.'s (1999) original study, Jackson and Balota (2013) used the difference between incongruent and congruent stimuli (e.g., *BLUE*<sub>green</sub> – *BLUE*<sub>blue</sub>) as an indicator of *interference*. This might not seem problematic, since numerous models of the Stroop
effect consider facilitation on congruent trials<fnref n="1" />, as the flip side of interference (see e.g., Cohen et al., 1990; Glaser & Glaser, 1989; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979; Melara & Algom, 2003; Phaf et al., 1990; Roelofs, 2003; but see e.g., Brown, 2011). Still, because interference and facilitation are largely asymmetrical in their respective magnitudes (MacLeod & MacDonald, 2000), without color-neutral trials (e.g., *DEAL*<sub>green</sub>), the overall Stroop (or congruency) effect reflects “(...) the sum of facilitation and interference, each in unknown amounts” (MacLeod, 1991, p.168, Figure 1).

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Diagrammatic representation of how Stroop facilitation, Stroop interference and its different components contribute to the overall Stroop (Congruency) effect.</figcaption></figure>

Perhaps more importantly, while true facilitation (i.e., reverse of interference) results
from converging irrelevant word-information, the actual magnitude of facilitation (e.g., *BLUE*<sub>blue</sub>
– *DEAL*<sub>blue</sub>, see Figure 1) is often determined by other input-driven mechanisms (e.g.,
inadvertent reading, response contingency; Hasshim & Parris, 2021; Parris et al., 2022 for an in-
depth discussions). Thus, to clearly establish the implications of results reported by Jackson and

<footnote n="1">¹ see Dalryple-Alford & Budayr, 1966, for the first demonstration of significantly faster color-identification of congruent compared color-neutral Stroop stimuli that Dalryple-Alford (1972) referred to as facilitation (see Figure 1).</footnote>
Balota (2013) for understanding the role of the quality of the task set in older adults, namely their ability to control interference, the second goal of the present study was to examine the effects of RSI and of healthy aging on changes on interference and on facilitation separately (see Figure 1).

Finally, the present study also attempted to address an additional and still-open issue of whether age-related changes in interference control are general or specific. Indeed, in the Stroop task, color-incongruent items (e.g., *BLUE<sub>green</sub>*) are likely to cause conflict at multiple stages within the information-processing stream (but see e.g., Roelofs, 2003 for a different view). To illustrate, Zhang and colleagues' two-conflict model (Zhang et al., 1999; Zhang & Kornblum, 1998) anticipates *stimulus* or *semantic conflict* to occur whenever two closely related semantic representations are simultaneously active (i.e., two colors here; see Figure 1). An additional (i.e., *response*) conflict occurs whenever the irrelevant word dimension of Stroop trials prompts a response that is included in the response set (e.g., blue for *BLUE<sub>green</sub>*; see Figure 1). It indeed causes a conflict between two eligible responses (e.g., say/press blue vs. green for *BLUE<sub>green</sub>*, see e.g., De Houwer, 2003; Martinon et al., 2024 for empirical demonstrations of the separate contribution of semantic vs. response conflicts to the Stroop interference).

While the reanalysis of Augustinova et al. (2018)'s data suggests that the control deficit in older adults is general – as older adults displayed greater magnitudes of both semantic and response conflict, two other existing studies argue in favor of its specificity. Still, one study reports the limited ability to control semantic conflict (Burca et al., 2022), whereas the other (Lee & Bosman, 1996) suggests the limited ability to control response conflict. These mixed results indicate that whether healthy aging affects only one subsystem of inhibitory control (and in that case which one) is also currently unclear. Consequently, the third goal of the present study was to shed some additional light on this remaining issue.
To achieve these different goals, the present study examined the effects of RSI and of healthy aging in the two-to-one Stroop paradigm (De Houwer, 2003, Hasshim & Parris, 2014, see Figure 1 and Method section for a detailed description). Indeed, in addition to measure facilitation and interference (i.e., a prime indicator of control; Algom et al., 2022; MacLeod, 1991; Parris et al., 2022 for broader discussions) separately, it allows to efficiently isolate semantic and response conflict (see e.g., Burca et al., 2022; Martinon et al., 2024).

# Method

## Transparency and Openness

The study was not pre-registered but all the de-identified data on which the study conclusions are based along with the materials are available at https://osf.io/wmu6c/?view_only=20310bfc79ac48918430e40b8fbe1b07. Analytic code is not available as standard frequentist and Bayesian ANOVAs and t-tests were conducted as depicted here below. Information about how sample size was determined and any data exclusion are reported here below. All manipulations and all measures are reported here below (or in Supplementary Materials, SM).

## Participants

One hundred healthy older adults (63 females and 37 males, $M_{age} = 69.14$; $SD_{age} = 5.05$) and one hundred and five younger adults (70 females and 35 males, $M_{age} = 24.13$; $SD_{age} = 3.26$) from both urban and rural areas participated in this study. The study which was not pre-registered, was approved by the local ethics committee. The data collection started in 2018 and, due to global pandemic, ended in 2022. All participants were native French-speakers and
reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision. To ensure that this was the case, the participants
were asked to name the color of four colored circles (printed in the response set colors, see e.g.,
Burca et al., 2022), given that color-blindness, along with uncorrected normal vision, late
acquisition of French, and medical history (detailed above) constituted the four exclusion
criteria. Additionally, no participant presented medical history including any psychiatric and/or
neurological disorders. None declared taking any drug and/or following any medical treatment
that is known to impact the nervous system during the 48 hours prior to inclusion. The older
participants also completed a psychometric evaluation battery including the Montreal Cognitive
Assessment (MoCA, Nasreddine et al., 2005). None of them reached the cutoff score of 26
points indicating a possible mild cognitive impairment (Nasreddine et al., 2005). For all the other
cognitive tests, and as expected, younger adults outperformed their older counterparts (Table 1S
in SM for detailed results).

## Procedure and Materials

After being fully informed about the objectives of the study, the participants agreed to
participate by signing a consent conform. They were then seated 70cm from the 13 inches-wide
portable computer screen and invited to complete a computerized version of the Stroop task
programmed with E-prime 2.0 software (Schneider et al., 2002).

The participants' goal was to identify the color of each stimulus presented on the screen,
as quickly and as accurately as possible while ignoring everything else in the display. To this
end, they were instructed to concentrate on the central fixation cross ("+") that appeared at the
beginning of each trial for either 200msec (short RSI used for one half of the participants) or
2000msec (long RSI used for the other half).
The stimuli remained on the screen until the participant responded or until 3500msec had elapsed. The stimuli and their presentation were identical as in Burca et al. (2022), such that a stimulus corresponded to either a color-word: rouge [red], jaune [yellow], bleu [blue], and vert [green] or a color-neutral (control) word: plomb [lead], liste [list], page [page], cave [basement] displayed in red (with RGB values of 255, 0, 0), yellow (208, 255, 93), blue (0, 0, 255) or green (0, 255,0) color. The color and non-color words were matched in length and frequency via Lexique 3.38 (New et al., 2004). All stimuli were presented in lowercase Courier font, size 18, on a black background (with RGB values of 0, 0, 0) and subtended an average visual angle of 0.9° high × 3.0° wide.

The participants identified colors manually by pressing the ‘k’ key of an AZERTY keyboard for responses to green and yellow colors or the ‘d’ key for responses to blue and red colors. This assignment of two colors to a single response key (hence called two-to-one Stroop paradigm) therefore generated two kinds of color-incongruent trials. *Same-response trials* are those for which the response primed by both the irrelevant task dimension (word “BLUE”) and the relevant task dimension (color “red”, see Figure 1) converge toward the same key (e.g., ‘d’) rendering these trials free of response conflict. Consequently, significant interference produced by these items (compared to their color-neutral counterparts like *DEAL*<sub>red</sub>) is due to *semantic conflict* arising from the two simultaneously activated color-concepts (“blue” vs. “red”, e.g., Seymour, 1977). An additional (i.e., response) conflict occurs for *different-response incongruent trials* (*BLUE*<sub>green</sub>) because the incorrect (pre)response activity of the left hand toward ‘d’ response-key interferes with the correct response activity of the right hand toward ‘k’ response-key. Both of these components of Stroop interference could therefore be distinguished from the facilitative effect of color-congruent trials (*BLUE*<sub>blue</sub>) by comparing reaction times (RTs) to these
items to their color-neutral counter-parts (DEAL<sub>blue</sub>, see Figure 1). RTs were measured to the
nearest millisecond.

Since Jackson and Balota (2013) used 50 congruent and 50 incongruent stimuli presented
in a random order in each of the ten blocks (resulting in 1,000 trials per participant), for the sake
of comparison with the present study, nine blocks of 120 trials were administered in the present
study (resulting in 1,080 trials per participant). Each block contained 48 different-response trials
(DR-trials), 24 same-response trials (SR-trials)<fnref n="2" />, 24 color-neutral words (N-trials), and 24 color-
congruent trials (C-trials; i.e., proportions used in both Burca et al., 2022 and Hashim & Parris,
2014). This experimental phase was preceded by a practice block that consisted of 144 trials of
colored asterisks (****) randomly presented in the four response set colors that all participants
completed with a success-rated above 80 percent.

After the participants completed the experiment programed in E-prime 2.0 software
(Schneider et al., 2002) and the psychometric evaluation (see Table 1S in SM), they were
thanked for their participation and fully debriefed.

Sample size, data analyses and design

The sample size was identical to the one used by Jackson and Balota (2013). This sample
size therefore largely exceeded a total sample size of 52 participants recommended by G*Power
(Faul et al., 2009) to detect a within-between interactions in a 4 (Stimulus-Type: different-
response vs. same-response vs. neutral vs. congruent) × 2 (RSI: long vs. short) × 2 (Age-Group:
older vs. younger adults) ANOVA with Stimulus-Type as within-participants factor (for an effect
size of 0.25, power of 0.95, and type 1 error rate of 0.05).

<footnote n="2"><sup>2</sup> If each color-word is presented in all the incongruent colors an equal number of times, it generates twice as much DR than SR trials.</footnote>
Using exactly the same analytical approach as in the study of Jackson and Balota (2013), the data was analyzed in 4 (Stimulus-Type: different-response vs. same-response vs. neutral vs. congruent) × 2 (RSI: long vs. short) × 2 (Age-Group: older vs. younger adults) using standard frequentist and Bayesian ANOVAs with Stimulus-Type as within-participants factor. Additional t-tests were used for further decompositions. For Bayesian statistics, the likelihood ratio of competing models was computed using JASP 0.14.1.0 (JASP Team, 2017 with default priors). Results in favor of the alternative (BF<sub>10</sub>) or null hypothesis (BF<sub>01</sub>) were interpreted according to Lee and Wagenmakers (2014).

## Results

Data of all participants were analyzed. Due to the low overall percentage of errors ($M_{total} = 3.87\%$), error rates were not analyzed further (but see Table 2S in SM for descriptive purposes). As in Jackson and Balota (2013), the first block was considered as practice. For the remaining 960 trials per participant, RTs greater than 3SDs above or below each participant's mean latency for each condition were excluded from the analysis resulting in 1.8% outliers in total.

Consistent with the general-slowing hypothesis of ageing, the mean RTs of older adults were substantially longer than those of the younger adults [$F(1,201) = 83.83; p<.001, \eta_p^2 = 0.294; BF_{10} = 1.190e+13$]. Therefore, in line with Faust et al. (1999), mostly the results of the standardized (i.e., z-scored) RTs are reported below, to control for generalized slowing. Still, it should be noted that the analysis of mean RTs generally showed the same results as in Jackson and Balota (2013) and mirrored those reported below on zRTs.
*Is the ability to maintain the relevant task set consistently across time preserved in older adults?*

As expected, zRTs varied as a function of Stimulus-Type [$F(3,603) = 216.31; p<.001, \eta_p^2 = 0.518$; $BF_{10} = 1.302 \times 10^{+103}$]. Further pair-wise comparisons adjusted for multiple comparisons revealed a significant overall Stroop effect ($M_{DR}-M_C; t(204) = 17.66, p<.001$; $BF_{10} = 4.007 \times 10^{+39}$). Again, as expected it involved both significant facilitation ($M_N-M_C; t(204) = 7.620, p<.001$; $BF_{10} = 7.123 \times 10^{+9}$) and interference ($M_{DR}-M_N; t(204) = 13.178, p<.001$; $BF_{10} = 7.648 \times 10^{+25}$, see Figure 1). The Stroop interference effect – a prime indicator of control – resulted in turn from the significant contributions of both semantic ($M_{SR}-M_N; t(204) = 7.859, p<.001$; $BF_{10} = 2.933 \times 10^{+10}$) and response ($M_{DR}-M_{SR}; t(204) = 9.371, p<.001$; $BF_{10} = 3.673 \times 10^{+14}$) conflict (see Figure 1). These results show clearly that the overall Stroop effect is indeed a composite phenomenon.

The main effects of Age-Group [$F(1,201)<.001; p = .993, \eta_p^2 = .000$; $BF_{01} = 11.837$] and of RSI [$F(1,201) = 1.55; p = .214, \eta_p^2 = 0.008$; $BF_{01} = 12.23$] were not significant on z-scored RTs. While, unlike in Jackson and Balota (2013), the Age × RSI interaction was not significant in the present study [$F(1,201) = 2.33; p = .128, \eta_p^2 = 0.011$; $BF_{01} = 7.552$], the Stimulus-Type × Age-Group interaction was significant in both types of ANOVA [$F(3,603) = 45.70; p = .001, \eta_p^2 = 0.185$; $BF_{10} = 1.8028 \times 10^3$] and so was the Stimulus-Type × RSI interaction [$F(3,603) = 6.59; p<.001, \eta_p^2 = 0.032$; $BF_{10} = 13.44$].

Crucially, and in accordance with this past work of Jackson and Balota (2013), Stimulus-Type × RSI interaction failed to interact with Age-Group. In line with the idea that the ability to maintain the relevant task set consistently across time is preserved in older adults, not only 3-way interaction $Age \times Stimulus-Type \times RSI$ remained non-significant [$F(3,603) = 1.341; p =$
.262, $\eta_p^2$ = 0.007] in standard frequentist ANOVA, but the Bayesian ANOVA additionally
provided moderate evidence (BF₀₁=3.599) in favor of the null effect of this 3-way interaction.

These results therefore mirrored those on raw RTs that equally showed that the absence of the 3-
way Stimulus-Type × Age-Group × RSI interaction [F(3,603) = .640; p = .590, $\eta_p^2$ = 0.003].

Again, this absence was additionally supported by strong evidence in favor of the null (BF₀₁ =
25.05; see Table 2S in SM for descriptive purposes).

In sum, the present study replicated the initially reported results of Jackson and Balota
(2013) and extended them to another (i.e., 2-to-1) Stroop paradigm. Again, older and younger
adults benefitted equally from short RSI, as additionally suggested by the above-mentioned
significant Stimulus-Type × RSI interaction.

In line with this latter idea, the simple main effect of Stimulus-Type included in the
Stimulus-Type × RSI interaction was significant in both long [F(3,199) = 106.34; p < .001, $\eta_p^2$ =
0.616; BF₁₀ = 5.890×10<sup>+57</sup>] and short RSI conditions [F(3,199) = 55.32; p < .001, $\eta_p^2$ = 0.455;
BF₁₀ = 3.309×10<sup>+42</sup>]. The further decompositions of this simple main effect showed that the same
components contributed to the overall Stroop effect under both RSIs (i.e., significant facilitation,
and significant interference resulting from a significant contribution of both semantic and
response conflict, Table 1³).

As in Jackson and Balota (2013), under the short (vs. long) RSI, the overall Stroop effect
(MDR–MC) was significantly reduced (*p* < .001, BF₁₀ = 1.433×10<sup>+13</sup>). This significant reduction
was due to shortened zRTs on DR-trials only (*p* < .001; BF₁₀ = 6.896), as the shortening zRTs on
congruent trials was not supported by the additional Bayesian evidence (Table 1). These latter
results suggest that short RSI specifically reduced Stroop interference (as opposed to facilitation).

<footnote n="3">³ See raw RTs in Table 1 for descriptive purposes only as the Stimulus × RSI interaction on raw RTs remained non-significant [F(3,603) = 2.27; *p* = .107, *η*<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.11; BF<sub>10</sub> = 0.044/BF<sub>01</sub> = 22.77], as in the original study of Jackson and Balota (2013).</footnote>
and that this reduction was due to the decreases of response conflict involved in DR-trials (Table 1). However, the additional analysis of magnitudes showed that the reductions in magnitudes of Stroop interference (M<sub>DR</sub>–M<sub>N</sub>) and of response conflict (M<sub>DR</sub>–M<sub>SR</sub>) it entails were not supported by the additional Bayesian evidence (see the bottom part of Table 1) and the Bayesian evidence in favor of the null also remained inconclusive (BF<sub>01</sub> = 0.506 and BF<sub>01</sub> = 0.556 for RSI effect on Stroop interference and response conflict respectively).

*Is the interference control degraded in older adults? And if yes, at what level of processing stream?*

To address the first question, it is important to understand that the significant 2-way Stimulus-Type × Age-Group interaction [F(3,603) = 42.15; *p* < .001, η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.173; BF<sub>10</sub> = 874.29] observed on raw RTs remained significant when standardized or zRTs were analyzed [F(3,603) = 45.70; *p* = .001, η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.185; BF<sub>10</sub> = 1.8028E+30, see Table 2]. This pattern of results shows that Stimulus-Type continues to interact with Age-Group, even after controlling for the expected differences in processing speed (see e.g., Spieler et al., 1996 for a discussion). As in Jackson and Balota (2013), this (remaining) interaction showed larger congruency or overall Stroop effect (M<sub>DR</sub>–M<sub>C</sub>) in older as compared to younger adults (see Table 2), a result echoing their initial claim that the quality of the task set is degraded in older adults. However, it is equally important to understand that whether the aforementioned task set quality degradation specifically results from a deficit in interference control – as also initially claimed by these authors – is at this point unclear.

To address this issue directly, the above-mentioned Stimulus-Type × Age-Group interaction was decomposed in the present study by testing the simple main effect of Stimulus-
Type at each level of Age-Group. It was significant in both younger [$F(3,199) = 26.61; p<.001$, $\eta_p^2 = 0.286$; $BF_{10} = 1.337 \times 10^{+27}$] and older adults [$F(3,199) = 159.60; p<.001$, $\eta_p^2 = 0.706$; $BF_{10} = 9.865 \times 10^{+83}$]. The contribution of facilitation ($M_N$-$M_C$) and of interference ($M_{DR}$-$M_N$) was significant in both age-groups with a greater magnitude of both in older (vs. younger) adults (see Table 2). This means that the larger Stroop effect in older adult results not only from greater amount of interference in older adults (as claimed by Jackson and Balota, 2013) but also from a substantially larger effect of facilitation, with moderate Bayesian evidence in favor of this effect. Still, because magnitudes of these opposing Stroop phenomena are largely asymmetrical (see Table 2), color-neutral trials (e.g., *DEAL<sub>green</sub>*) are clearly needed to assess their respective contribution to the overall Stroop (or congruency) effect (MacLeod, 1991).

Finally, to address the remaining issue of the level of processing stream at which the interference control is degraded, the additional compositions of the simple main effect of Stimulus-Type were performed at each level of Age-Group. These decompositions further indicated a different structure of the Stroop interference effect. Indeed, significantly greater interference in older adults resulted from the contribution of both semantic ($M_{SR}$-$M_N$) and response ($M_{DR}$-$M_{SR}$) conflicts, as compared to the significant contribution of response conflict alone in younger adults (see Table 2). This result suggests that the aforementioned lower control of interference in older adults primarily occurs at the level of semantic conflict.

## Discussion

The present study examined the effects of RSI and of healthy aging in the two-to-one Stroop paradigm (De Houwer, 2003, Hasshim & Parris, 2014). This variant not only measures the opposing effects of facilitation and interference separately, but allows one to efficiently
isolate semantic and response conflict (i.e., the two known components of the interference effect). This change in a Stroop paradigm thus involved the addition of color-neutral and same-response items – instead of the sole use of color-congruent and DR-items in the initial study of Jackson and Balota (2013).

Despite this change, the moderating effect of short (vs. long) RSI on the magnitude of the overall Stroop effect (Stimulus-Type × RSI interaction) failed to interact with age on both raw and z-scored RTs. This means that the present study successfully replicated Jackson and Balota (2013)' original results and extended them to a different Stroop paradigm, which increases their generalizability. In line with this latter idea, in the present study, the absence of Stimulus-Type × RSI × Age-Group interaction was additionally directly supported by the Bayes factor in favor of the null.

This evidence, along with the significant Stimulus-Type × RSI interaction shows that both older and younger adults benefited equally from the short RSI – replicating and further supporting Jackson and Balota (2013)'s claim that the ability to maintain the relevant color-naming task set across time is preserved in older adults.

This benefit resulted in significantly lower magnitudes of the overall Stroop effect in the short (as opposed the long) RSI. It is however worth reiterating that this reduction cannot be equated with the reduced *interference*, as originally argued by Jackson and Balota (2013), and this not only because the overall Stroop effect includes significant amount of both interference and facilitation. Indeed, in the present study the reduction of Stroop interference via shortened RSI was not supported by more conservative Bayesian analyses. This latter pattern of results along with reduced zRTs to congruent trials (again only supported by standard frequentist analyses) is actually consistent with the De Jong et al. (1999)'s initial idea that a short RSI is
likely to increase a consistent focus on the relevant task set (see also Jackson & Balota, 2013).
Importantly however, this pattern of results contradicts their additional, often reiterated idea, that
the inhibition is in turn deployed more consistently. If this were the case, the reduction of Stroop
interference (prima facie evidence for an inhibitory boost) would have been significant along
with the reduction of the response and/or semantic conflict it entails. In sum, the present study
suggests that the RSI-manipulation likely boosts goal maintenance (i.e., consistent focus on the
endogenously activated relevant task set of color-naming), but not necessarily the control of the
exogenously activated irrelevant task set of word-reading (Augustinova et al., 2018; but see
Martinon et al., 2024 for the reduction of semantic conflict). Finally, it also remains plausible
that the accrued focus on the relevant task set of color-naming reduced another known
component of the overall Stroop effect (i.e., task conflict that is also involved in congruent trials)
– leading to its significantly reduced magnitude<fnref n="4" />. Therefore, future studies need to measure this
more general conflict deriving from a simultaneous activation of two task sets: word-reading vs.
color-naming, directly (e.g., Bench et al., 1993; Goldfarb & Henik, 2007; Hershman & Henik,
2020 for PET, behavioral and pupillometric evidence of task conflict; see also Kalanthroff et al.,
2018 for a modelling approach; but see Parris et al., 2023 for another perspective). While
younger and older results seem to display equal magnitudes of this type of conflict (Keha et al.,
in press), whether the reduction of these magnitude via short RSI is also equal (as speculated
above), still needs to be demonstrated directly.

The control of the exogenously activated irrelevant task set of word-reading is still
central in explaining age-related differences in magnitudes of the overall Stroop effect. While
age-differences in the magnitude of response conflict were significant, suggesting at least some

<footnote n="4">⁴ This reduction might not necessarily involve that of the Stroop interference and of its different components (i.e., semantic and response conflicts).</footnote>
age-related deficit in response inhibition (see the re-analysis of Augustinova et al. (2018)'s data by Burca et al., 2022 and see also Lee & Bosman, 1996), older adults showed disproportionally larger semantic conflict in the present data (see also Burca et al., 2022).

In line with age-related differences in functioning of the frontal lobe (e.g., West, 1996; West & Schwarb, 2006), this latter type of age-related differences is likely to result from lower ability of older adults to control the output of an irrelevant task set (i.e., word reading). A significantly larger facilitation effect in older adults observed in the present study is also consistent with this idea. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that older adults also show more accrued semantic activation (Lien et al., 2006). Consequently, a larger impact of converging vs. diverging word-information causing larger (true) facilitation and interference effects that older adults display, can be equally attributed to the fact that the irrelevant word reading is also more readily and/or strongly activated. This also implies a potentially bigger benefit more from inadvertent reading and a greater magnitude of facilitation from this input-driven mechanism in older as compared to younger adults. Both of these possibilities point to the fact that the extent to which larger Stroop effects in older adults are due to greater activation of an irrelevant task set (i.e., word reading) as opposed to its less efficient inhibition (or both) is still largely unknown. Future research using ERP correlates (e.g., Killikelly, & Szűcs, 2013) or processes dissociation methods (e.g., Spieler et al., 1996) should permit a direct evaluation of these remaining issues.

Finally, these uncertainties, along with age-related differences in both interference and facilitation emphasize once more that the magnitude of Stroop interference (as opposed to that of overall Stroop or congruency effect) is a more direct and reliable indicator of
cognitive/interference control in both older adults (Burca et al., 2022) and in general (e.g.,
Algom et al., 2022; Hasshim & Parris, 2021; Parris et al., 2022 for broader discussions).

To conclude, Jackson and Balota (2013) reasoned that “the disproportionate age-related
interference (...) does not appear to be due to differences in the maintenance of task set, but
rather due to age-related differences in the quality of the task set” (p.752). The present study
demonstrates that, irrespective of changes in the type (i.e., color-neutral and same response
stimuli were added in the present study) and the language of stimuli (i.e., French instead of
English), Jackson and Balota’s conclusion still holds. Importantly, the present study sheds new
light on the remaining issue of *how* exactly the quality of the task set evolves with healthy
ageing. In contrast to prevailing unitary models of Stroop performance (e.g., Cohen et al., 1990;
Glaser & Glaser, 1989; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979; Melara & Algom, 2003; Phaf et al., 1990;
Roelofs, 2003) anticipating that the Stroop interference effect is driven by a single type of
conflict (i.e., response conflict), the present study shows that the quality of task in older adults is
disproportionally degraded at the level of semantic conflict. Therefore, despite its limitations
(i.e., the aforementioned absence of task conflict measure, lack of control for associative-priming
confounds, e.g. Henson et al., 2014; Hommel, 2004; Schmidt & Weissman, 2016), the most
immediate and clear conclusion of the present study is that future interventions designed to boost
attentional selectivity in older adults need to target semantic, rather than response conflict.
## Declarations

**Funding:** The work reported was supported by ANR-19-CE28-0013 Grant from Agence Nationale de la recherche and RIN Tremplin Grant 19E00851 from Normandie Region, France awarded to MA, PC, DC, LF, BP and LS, by ANR-21-CE28-0029 Grant from Agence Nationale de la recherche awarded to FM and doctoral grant from Normandie Region awarded to MB.

**Conflicts of interest/Competing interests:** none.

**Employment:** none.

**Financial interests:** none.

**Non-financial interests:** none.

**Ethics approval:** The collection of the data reported in the present study was approved by the CRFDP Research Ethics Committee (2018-02-A).

**Consent to participate:** After receiving information about the study each participant agreed to participate by signing a written consent.

**Consent for publication:** na.

**Availability of data and materials:** All data and materials have been made publicly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) and can be accessed at https://osf.io/wmu6c/?view_only=20310bfc79ac48918430e40b8fbe1b07 (file "Data")

**Code availability:** A program used for running the experiment has been made publicly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) and can be accessed at https://osf.io/wmu6c/?view_only=20310bfc79ac48918430e40b8fbe1b07 (file "Stroop tasks")

**Open Practices Statements:** The reported experiment was not preregistered but the data and materials for all experiments are available at https://osf.io/wmu6c/?view_only=20310bfc79ac48918430e40b8fbe1b07.

**Data dissemination:** There was no prior dissemination of the ideas and data appearing in the manuscript.
References

Algom, D., Fitousi, D., & Chajut, E. (2022). Can the Stroop effect serve as the gold standard of conflict monitoring and control? A conceptual critique. *Memory & Cognition, 50*(5), 883-897. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01251-5

Augustinova, M., Silvert, L., Spatola, N., & Ferrand, L. (2018). Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals. *Acta Psychologica, 189*, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2017.03.009

Belleville, S., Rouleau, N., & Caza, N. (1998). Effect of normal aging on the manipulation of information in working memory. *Memory and Cognition, 26*(3), 572–583.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201163

Bench, C. J., Frith, C. D., Grasby, P. M., Friston, K. J., Paulesu, E., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Dolan, R. J. (1993). Investigations of the functional anatomy of attention using the stroop test. *Neuropsychologia, 31*(9), 907–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(93)90147-R

Brown, T. L. (2011). The relationship between Stroop interference and facilitation ef-fects: Statistical artifacts, baselines, and a reassessment. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37*(1), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019252

Bugaiska, A., Clarys, D., Jarry, C., Taconnat, L., Tapia, G., Vanneste, S., & Isingrini, M. (2007). The effect of aging in recollective experience: The processing speed and executive functioning hypothesis. *Consciousness and Cognition, 16*(4), 797-808.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.11.007

Bugg, J. M., DeLosh, E. L., Davalos, D. B., & Davis, H. P. (2007). Age differences in Stroop interference: Contributions of general slowing and task-specific deficits. *Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 14*(2), 155-167.
Burca, M., Chausse, P., Ferrand, L., Parris, B. A., & Augustinova, M. (2022). Some further clarifications on age-related differences in the Stroop task: New evidence from the two-to-one Stroop paradigm. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 29, 492–500.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02011-x

Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic pro-cesses: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. *Psychological Review*, 97(3), 332. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.97.3.332

Dalrymple-Alford, E. C. (1972). Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task. *Perception & Psychophysics*, 11(4), 274–276.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210377

Dalrymple-Alford, E. C., & Budayr, B. (1966). Examination of some aspects of the Stroop color-word test. *Perceptual and Motor Skills*, 23, 1211–1214.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1966.23.3f.1211

De Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. *Memory & Cognition*, 31(3), 353–359.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194393

De Jong, R., Berendsen, E., & Cools, R. (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. *Acta Psychologica*, 101(2–3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00012-8

Faust, M. E., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., & Ferraro, F. R. (1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. *Psychological Bulletin*, 125(6), 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.125.6.777

Glaser, W. R., & Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 118(1), 13-42.

https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.118.1.13

Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2007). Evidence for task conflict in the Stroop effect. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance*, 33(5), 1170–1176.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1170

Hasshim, N. & Parris, B. A. (2014). Two-to-one color-response mapping and the presence of semantic conflict in the Stroop task. *Frontiers in Psychology, 5*, 1157.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01157

Hasshim, N., & Parris, B. A. (2021). The role of contingency and correlation in the Stroop task.
*Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74*(10), 1657-1668. DOI:

10.1177/17470218211032548

Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus-response bindings in priming. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18*(7), 376–384.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.004

Hershman, R., & Henik, A. (2020). Pupillometric contributions to deciphering Stroop conflicts.

*Memory & Cognition, 48*(2), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00971-z

Hommel, B. (2004). Coloring an action: Intending to produce color events eliminates the Stroop effect. *Psychological Research, 68*(2–3), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0146-5

Jackson, J. D. & Balota, D. A. (2013). Age-related changes in attentional selection: Quality of task set or degradation of task set across time? *Psychology and Aging, 28*(3), 744.

https://doi.org/10.1037/A0033159
JASP Team (2017). JASP (Version 0.14) [Computer Software]. Copyright 2013-2020 University of Amsterdam.

Kalanthroff, E., Davelaar, E. J., Henik, A., Goldfarb, L., & Usher, M. (2018). Task conflict and proactive control: A computational theory of the Stroop task. *Psychological Review, 125*(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000083

Keha, E. Aisenberg-Shafran, D. Hochman, S., & Kalanthroff, E. (in press). Age-Related Differences in Information, but not Task Control in the Color-Word Stroop Task. *Psychonomic Bulletin and Review*.

Killikelly, C., & Szűcs, D. (2013). Asymmetry in stimulus and response conflict processing across the adult lifespan: ERP and EMG evidence. *Cortex, 49*(10), 2888-2903.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.08.017

Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55*(4), 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043688

Lee, M. D. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). *Bayesian Modeling for Cognitive Science: A Practical Course*. Cambridge University Press.

Li, K. Z. H. & Bosman, E. A. (1996). Age differences in stroop-like interference as a function of semantic relatedness. *Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 3*(4), 272–284.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13825589608256630

Lien, M. C., Allen, P. A., Ruthruff, E., Grabbe, J., McCann, R. S., & Remington, R. W. (2006).
Visual word recognition without central attention: evidence for greater automaticity with advancing age. *Psychology and Aging, 21*(3), 431–447. 10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.431.

Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. *Memory and Cognition,*
7, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197535

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.
*Psychological Bulletin*, 109(2), 163–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163

Martinon L., Ferrand L., Burca M., Hasshim N., Lakhzoum D., Parris B. A., Silvert L., & Augustinova M. (2024). Distributional analyses reveal the polymorphic nature of the Stroop interference effect: It’s about (response) time. *Memory and Cognition*, 52(6), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01538-3

Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: a tectonic theory of Stroop effects.
*Psychological Review*, 110(3), 422–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.422

Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., Cummings, J. L., & Chertkow, H. (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. *Journal of the American Geriatrics Society*, 53(4), 695–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x

New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. *Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers*, 36(3), 516–524.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195598

Nicosia, J., Cohen-Shikora, E. R., & Balota, D. A. (2021). Re-examining age differences in the Stroop effect: The importance of the trees in the forest (plot). *Psychology and Aging*, 36(2), 214214–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000599

Parris, B. A., Hasshim, N., Wadsley, M., Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2022). The loci of Stroop effects: A critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional selection. *Psychological Research*, 86(4), 1029–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-00917-9
01554-x

Parris, B. A., Hasshim, N., Ferrand, L., & Augustinova, M., (2023). Do Task Sets Compete in the Stroop Task and Other Selective Attention Paradigms? *Journal of Cognition*, 6(1), 23.DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.272

Phaf, R. H., Van Der Heijden, A. H. C., & Hudson, P. T. W. (1990). SLAM: A connectionist model for attention in visual selection tasks. *Cognitive Psychology*, 22, 273-341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(90)90006-P

Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. *Psychological Review*, 110(1), 88–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.88

Ruthruff, E., & Lien, M.C. (2016). Aging and Attention. In Pachana, N. (Ed.), *Encyclopedia of Geropsychology*. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-080-3_227-1

Salthouse, T. A. (1990). Working memory as a processing resource in cognitive aging.
*Developmental Review*, 10(1), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(90)90006-P

Seymour, P. H. (1977). Conceptual encoding and locus of the Stroop effect. *The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 29(2), 245-265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747708400601

Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996). Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer's type. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance*, 22(2), 461–479.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.2.461

Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2016). Congruency sequence effects and previous response times: conflict adaptation or temporal learning? *Psychological Research*, 80(4), 590–607.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0681-x

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime user's guide. *Psychology Software Tools*. Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. *Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18*(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651

West, R., & Schwarb, H. (2006). The influence of aging and frontal function on the neural correlates of regulative and evaluative aspects of cognitive control. *Neuropsychology, 20*(4), 468–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.20.4.468

West, R. L. (1996). An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitive aging. *Psychological Bulletin, 120*(2), 272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.272

Zhang, H., & Kornblum, S. (1998). The effects of stimulus-response mapping and irrelevant stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus overlap in four-choice Stroop tasks with single-carrier stimuli. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24*(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.1.3

Zhang, H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response compatibility. *Cognitive Psychology, 38*(3), 386–432. https://doi.org/10.1006/COGP.1998.0703
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Color-Identification Performance on Z-scored RTs (Means, Standard Errors) observed as a Function of Stimulus and RSI group</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">RTs & z-scored RTs</th><th colspan="2">Long RSI<br>(2000ms)</th><th colspan="2">Short RSI<br>(200ms)</th><th colspan="2">Long RSI<br>(2000ms)</th><th colspan="2">Short RSI<br>(200ms)</th><th rowspan="2">Benefit of<br>short RSI</th></tr><tr><th>M<br>(SE)</th><th>CI</th><th>M<br>(SE)</th><th>CI</th><th>Benefit of<br>short RSI</th><th>M<br>(SE)</th><th>CI</th><th>M<br>(SE)</th><th>CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Different-Response<br>(DR)</strong><br>Color-Incongruent Items</td><td>797<br>(22)</td><td>[754, 839]</td><td>740<br>(21)</td><td>[699, 782]</td><td>-57<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td><td>.164<br>(.011)</td><td>[.142, .185]</td><td>.112<br>(.011)</td><td>[.091, .133]</td><td>-.052<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Same-Response (SR)</strong><br>Color incongruent Items</td><td>770<br>(21)</td><td>[729, 810]</td><td>722<br>(20)</td><td>[683, 762]</td><td>-48<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td><td>.042<br>(.009)</td><td>[.025, .059]</td><td>.035<br>(.008)</td><td>[.019, .052]</td><td>-.007<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Color Neutral</strong> Items</td><td>744<br>(19)</td><td>[707, 780]</td><td>700<br>(18)</td><td>[664, 736]</td><td>-44<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td><td>-.061<br>(.010)</td><td>[-.080, -.042]</td><td>-.046<br>(.009)</td><td>[-.064, -.028]</td><td>-.015<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Color-Congruent</strong> Items</td><td>727<br>(19)</td><td>[690, 763]</td><td>686<br>(18)</td><td>[651, 722]</td><td>-40<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td><td>-.143<br>(.009)</td><td>[-.161, -.126]</td><td>-.102<br>(.009)</td><td>[-.119, -.085]</td><td>-.041<sup>**</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td><em>Magnitudes (based on<br>RTs & zRTs)</em></td><td>M<br>(SE)</td><td>CI</td><td>M<br>(SE)</td><td>CI</td><td>Benefit of<br>short RSI</td><td>M<br>(SE)</td><td>CI</td><td>M<br>(SE)</td><td>CI</td><td>Benefit of<br>short RSI</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Overall Stroop effect</strong><br>(DR – Congruent)</td><td>70<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(6)</td><td>[59, 82]</td><td>54<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(6)</td><td>[42, 65]</td><td>-16<sup>ns</sup></td><td>.307<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.017)</td><td>[.273, .341]</td><td>.214<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.017)</td><td>[.181, 247]</td><td>-.093<sup>**</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Facilitation effect</strong><br>(Neutral – Congruent)</td><td>17<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(3)</td><td>[11, 24]</td><td>14<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(3)</td><td>[7, 20]</td><td>-4<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td><td>.082<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.013)</td><td>[.056, .107]</td><td>.056<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.012)</td><td>[.031, .080]</td><td>-.026<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Stroop Interference<br>effect</strong><br>(DR – Neutral)</td><td>53<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(6)</td><td>[41, 66]</td><td>40<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(6)</td><td>[28, 52]</td><td>-13<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td><td>.225<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.018)</td><td>[.189, .261]</td><td>.158<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.018)</td><td>[.123, 193]</td><td>-.067<sup>*</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Response Conflict</strong><br>(DR – SR)</td><td>27<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(4)</td><td>[19, 35]</td><td>18<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(4)</td><td>[10, 25]</td><td>-9<sup>ns</sup></td><td>.122<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.015)</td><td>[.094, .151]</td><td>.078<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.014)</td><td>[.050, 105]</td><td>-.045<sup>*</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Semantic Conflict</strong><br>(SR – Neutral)</td><td>26<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(5)</td><td>[17, 35]</td><td>22<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(4)</td><td>[14, 31]</td><td>-4<sup>ns</sup></td><td>.103<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.015)</td><td>[.072, .133]</td><td>.081<sup>**</sup>/<sup>††</sup><br>(.015)</td><td>[.051, 110]</td><td>-.022<sup>ns</sup>/<sup>ns</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Frequentist inference: ns non-significant; * significant at *p* < .05; ** significant at *p* < .01; † significant at *p* < .001; Bayesian inference (presented after the slash):

ns no evidence of an effect, with BF<sub>10</sub> value between 0-1; ns anecdotal evidence in favor of H1, with BF<sub>10</sub> value between 1-3; * moderate evidence in favor of H1, with BF<sub>10</sub> value between 3-10.
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Color-Identification Performance on Z-scored RTs (Means, Standard Errors) observed as a Function of Stimulus and Age-Group</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Rts & z-scored RTs</th><th colspan="2">Younger Adults</th><th colspan="2">Older Adults</th><th colspan="2">Younger Adults</th><th colspan="2">Older Adults</th><th rowspan="2">Effect of Aging</th></tr><tr><th>M (SE)</th><th>CI</th><th>M (SE)</th><th>CI</th><th>Effect of Aging</th><th>M (SE)</th><th>CI</th><th>M (SE)</th><th>CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Different-Response (DR)</strong><br>Color-Incongruent Items</td><td>625<br>(21)</td><td>[584, 667]</td><td>912<br>(22)</td><td>[869, 954]</td><td>+287<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>.080<br>(.011)</td><td>[.059, .101]</td><td>.196<br>(.011)</td><td>[.174, .217]</td><td>+1.116<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Same-Response (SR)</strong><br>Color incongruent Items</td><td>613<br>(20)</td><td>[574, 652]</td><td>879<br>(21)</td><td>[839, 920]</td><td>+266<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>.010<br>(.008)</td><td>[-.007, .026]</td><td>.067<br>(.009)</td><td>[.050, .084]</td><td>+0.057<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Color Neutral Items</strong></td><td>606<br>(18)</td><td>[570, 641]</td><td>838<br>(19)</td><td>[801, 874]</td><td>+232<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>-.021<br>(.009)</td><td>[-.039, -.002]</td><td>-.087<br>(.010)</td><td>[-.106, -.068]</td><td>+0.066<sup>**</sup>/<i>ns</i></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Color-Congruent Items</strong></td><td>597<br>(18)</td><td>[561, 633]</td><td>816<br>(19)</td><td>[779, 853]</td><td>+219<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>-.069<br>(.009)</td><td>[-.086, -.052]</td><td>-.176<br>(.009)</td><td>[-.193, -.158]</td><td>+1.017<sup>**</sup>/<i>ns</i></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Magnitudes (based on RTs & zRTs)</strong></td><td>M (SE)</td><td>CI</td><td>M (SE)</td><td>CI</td><td>Effect of Aging</td><td>M (SE)</td><td>CI</td><td>M (SE)</td><td>CI</td><td>Effect of Aging</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Overall Stroop effect</strong><br>(DR – Congruent)</td><td>28<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[17, 39]</td><td>96<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[84, 107]</td><td>+67<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>.149<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[.116, 1.82]</td><td>.372<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[.338, 4.06]</td><td>+2.223<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Facilitation effect</strong><br>(Neutral – Congruent)</td><td>9<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[2, 15]</td><td>22<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[15, 28]</td><td>+13<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>.048<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[.024, .072]</td><td>.089<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[.064, .114]</td><td>+0.041<sup>*/*</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Stroop Interference effect</strong><br>(DR – Neutral)</td><td>19<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[7, 31]</td><td>74<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[61, 86]</td><td>+54<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>.101<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[.066, .136]</td><td>.282<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[.246, .318]</td><td>+1.181<sup>*/††</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Response Conflict</strong><br>(DR – SR)</td><td>12<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[5, 20]</td><td>33<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[25, 40]</td><td>+21<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>.071<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[.043, .098]</td><td>.129<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[.101, .158]</td><td>+0.059<sup>*/*</sup></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Semantic Conflict</strong><br>(SR – Neutral)</td><td>7<sup>ns</sup>/<i>ns</i><sup>*</sup></td><td>[-2, 16]</td><td>41<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[32, 50]</td><td>+34<sup>*</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>.030<sup>ns</sup>/<i>ns</i><sup>*</sup></td><td>[.001, .060]</td><td>.153<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td><td>[.123, .183]</td><td>+1.123<sup>**</sup>/<i>††</i></td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note.* Frequentist inference: nsnon-significant; \*significant at *p* < .05; \*\*significant at *p* < .01; \*\*\*significant at *p* < .001; Bayesian inference (presented after the slash): nsno evidence of an effect, with BF<sub>10</sub> value between 0-1; ns\*anecdotal evidence in favor of H1, with BF<sub>10</sub> value between 1-3; \*moderate evidence in favor of H1, with BF<sub>10</sub> value between 3-10; \*\*strong evidence in favor of H1, with BF<sub>10</sub> value between 10-30; \*\*\*very strong evidence in favor of H1, with BF<sub>10</sub> between 30-100; \*\*\*\*extreme evidence in favor of H1/of an effect, with BF<sub>10</sub> < 100.