Research Article

Spatial and semantic interference on an auditory Stroop test: comparison of young and older adults


Background and Aim: Age related changes in cognitive functioning have been shown to vary depending on the task used. Thus, the study aimed to compare the responses of young and older adults to an auditory Stroop test that assessed spatial (responses to location of the stimuli) and semantic (responses to meaning of the stimuli) localization.
The “Auditory spatial and semantic localization Stroop test”, developed as a part of the study was administered on 30 young adults aged 18 to 30 years and 30 older adults aged 58 to 70 years having normal hearing. The response accuracy and reaction time of the participants were determined for the words “right”, “left”, “front”, and “back.”
Results: The older adults had significantly poorer response accuracy and reaction time than the young adults for both spatial and semantic localization tasks. Within each participant group, semantic localization had better response accuracy than spatial localization, while such differences in reaction time were found only in the older adults. In both groups, a congruency effect was seen for spatial but not for semantic localization when response accuracy was calculated, whereas it was observed only for semantic and not for spatial localization when reaction time was measured.
Conclusion: The auditory Stroop test, which measures stimulus interference and cognitive skills, could be used as a simple tool to assess the same for stimuli presented through the auditory modality. This would be especially helpful in older adults who may demonstrate cognitive decline with ageing to auditory stimuli.

1. Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol. 1935;18(6):643-62. doi: 10.1037/h0054651
2. Naor-Raz G, Tarr MJ, Kersten D. Is color an intrinsic property of object representation? Perception. 2003;32(6):667-80. doi: 10.1068/p5050
3. Van der Elst W, Van Boxtel MPJ, Van Breukelen GJP, Jolles J. The Stroop color-word test: influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment. 2006;13(1):62-79. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427
4. Uttl B, Graf P. Color-word Stroop test performance across the adult life span. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1997;19(3):405-20. doi: 10.1080/01688639708403869
5. Graf P, Uttl B, Tuokko H. Color- and picture-word stroop tests: performance changes in old age. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1995;17(3):390-415. doi: 10.1080/01688639508405132
6. Green EJ, Barber PJ. Interference effects in an auditory stroop task: congruence and correspondence. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1983;53(3):183-94. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(83)90001-x
7. Jerger S, Martin RC, Pirozzolo FJ. A developmental study of the auditory Stroop effect. Brain Lang. 1988;35(1):86-104. doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(88)90102-2
8. Morgan AL, Brandt JF. An auditory Stroop effect for pitch, loudness, and time. Brain Lang. 1989;36(4):592-603. doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(89)90088-6
9. Cohen G, Martin M. Hemisphere differences in an auditory Stroop test. Percept Psychophys. 1975;17(1):79-83. doi: 10.3758/BF03204002
10. Hamers JF, Lambert WE. Bilingual interdependencies in auditory perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1972;11(3):303-10. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80091-4
11. Posner MI. Structures and function of selective attention. In: Boll T, Bryant T, editors. Master lecture in clinical neuropsychology Vol. 7. Washington: American Psychological Association; 1988. p. 173-202.
12. Klein GS. Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming. Am J Psychol. 1964;77(4):576-88. doi: 10.2307/1420768
13. Davidson DJ, Zacks RT, Williams CC. Stroop interference, practice, and aging. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2003;10(2):85-98. doi: 10.1076/anec.
14. Moering RG, Schinka JA, Mortimer JA, Graves AB. Normative data for elderly African Americans for the Stroop color and word test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19(1):61-71. doi: 10.1093/arclin/19.1.61
15. Hasher L, Zacks RT. Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. Psychology of learning and motivation. 1988;22:193-225. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60041-9
16. Burke DM. College P. Language, aging, and inhibitory deficits: evaluation of a theory. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1997;52(6):254-64. doi: 10.1093/geronb/52b.6.p254
17. Dywan J, Murphy WE. Aging and inhibitory control in text comprehension. Psychol Aging. 1996;11(2):199-206. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.11.2.199
18. West R, Alain C. Age-related decline in inhibitory control contributes to the increased Stroop effect observed in older adults. Psychophysiology. 2000;37(2):179-89. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3720179
19. Dey A, Sommers MS. Age-related differences in inhibitory control predict audiovisual speech perception. Psychol Aging. 2015;30(3):634-46. doi: 10.1037/pag0000033
20. Shilling VM, Chetwynd A, Rabbitt PMA. Individual inconsistency across measures of inhibition: an investigation of the construct validity of inhibition in older adults. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40(6):605-19. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00157-9
21. Stoltzfus ER, Hasher L, Zacks RT. Working memory and aging: Current status of the inhibitory view. In: Richardson JTE, Eagle RW, Hasher L, Logie RH, Stoltzfus ER, Zacks RT, editors. Working memory and human cognition. 1st ed. Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 66-88.
22. Comalli Jr PE, Wapner S, Werner H. Interference effects of Stroop color-word test in childhood, adulthood, and aging. J Genet Psychol. 1962;100:47-53. doi: 10.1080/00221325.1962.10533572
23. Knight S, Heinrich A. Different measures of auditory and visual Stroop interference and their relationship to speech intelligibility in noise. Front Psychol. 2017;8:230. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00230
24. Christensen TA, Lockwood JL, Almryde KR, Plante E. Neural substrates of attentive listening assessed with a novel auditory Stroop task. Front Hum Neurosci. 2011;4:236. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2010.00236
25. Buzzell GA, Roberts DM, Baldwin CL, McDonald CG. An electrophysiological correlate of conflict processing in an auditory spatial Stroop task: The effect of individual differences in navigational style. Int J Psychophysiol. 2013;90(2):265-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.08.008
26. Pires L, Leitão J, Guerrini C, Simões MR. Event-related brain potentials in the study of inhibition: cognitive control, source localization and age-related modulations. Neuropsychol Rev. 2014;24(4):461-90. doi: 10.1007/s11065-014-9275-4
27. Hong X, Wang Y, Sun J, Li C, Tong S. Segregating top-down selective attention from response inhibition in a spatial cueing Go/NoGo task: An ERP and source localization study. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):9662. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08807-z
28. Collins L, Schirillo J. Attention to endogenous and exogenous cues affects auditory localization. Exp Brain Res. 2013;231(1):13-8. doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3663-5
29. Klatt L-I, Getzmann S, Wascher E, Schneider D. The contribution of selective spatial attention to sound detection and sound localization: Evidence from event-related potentials and lateralized alpha oscillations. Biol Psychol. 2018;138:133-45. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.08.019
30. Palef SR, Nickerson RB. Representing auditory space. Percept Psychophys. 1978;23(5):445-50. doi: 10.3758/BF03204148
31. Yao N. Auditory localisation: contributions of sound location and semantic spatial cues. [Master's Thesis]. Queensland University of Technology; 2007.
32. Loomis JM, Lippa Y, Golledge RG, Klatzky RL. Spatial updating of locations specified by 3-d sound and spatial language. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002;28(2):335-45. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.2.335
33. Muller BS, Bovet P. Performance and reaction times in monaural localization of first names in the horizontal plane. Brain Lang. 2002;82(1):1-9. doi: 10.1016/s0093-934x(02)00010-x
34. Pillai R, Yathiraj A. Auditory, visual and auditory-visual memory and sequencing performance in typically developing children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;100:23-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.06.010
35. Thompson-Schill SL, Aguirre GK, D'Esposito M, Farah MJ. A neural basis for category and modality specificity of semantic knowledge. Neuropsychologia. 1999;37(6):671-6. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(98)00126-2
36. Dhrruvakumar S, Yathiraj A. Relation between auditory memory and global memory in young and older adults. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278(7):2577-83. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06512-8
37. Roup CM, Wiley TL, Safady SH, Stoppenbach DT. Tympanometric screening norms for adults. Am J Audiol. 1998;7(2):55-60. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(1998/014)
38. Yathiraj A, Vijayalakshmi C. Phonemically balanced wordlist in Kannada. Developed in Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore. 2005.
39. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189-98. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
40. Mathuranath PS, Cherian JP, Mathew R, George A, Alexander A, Sarma SP. Mini mental state examination and the Addenbrooke's cognitive examination: Effect of education and norms for a multicultural population. Neurol India. 2007;55(2):106-10. doi: 10.4103/0028-3886.32779
41. Tripathi RK, Tiwari SC. Cognitive dysfunction in normally aging urban older adults: A community-based study. Indian J Psychol Med. 2011;33(2):177-81. doi: 10.4103/0253-7176.92059
42. Snellen H. [Letterproeven, tot bepaling der gezigtsscherpte]. Utrecht: PW van der Weijer; 1862. Dutch.
43. Sue S. Test distance vision using a Snellen chart. Community Eye Health. 2007;20(63):52.
44. American National Standards Institute. American national standard maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric rooms: standards secretariate. Acoustical Society of America; R2013.
45. Olsen WO. Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions. Am J Audiol. 1998;7(2):
21-25. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(1998/012)
46. Zimmerman DW. Invalidation of parametric and non-parametric statistical tests by concurrent violation of two assumptions. The Journal of Experimental Education. 1998;67(1):55-68. doi: 10.1080/00220979809598344
47. Glass GV, Peckham PD, Sanders JR. Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research. 1972;42(3):237-88. doi: 10.3102/00346543042003237
48. Sawilowsky SS. Nonparametric tests of interaction in experimental design. Review of Educational Research. 1990;60(1):91-126. doi: 10.3102/00346543060001091
49. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
IssueVol 30 No 4 (2021) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Spatial localization semantic localization auditory Stroop test age related changes

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Dhrruvakumar S, Yathiraj A. Spatial and semantic interference on an auditory Stroop test: comparison of young and older adults. Aud Vestib Res. 2021;30(4):241-255.