OBJECTIVE: The Stroop (Stroop, 1935) is a frequently used neuropsychological test, with poor performance typically interpreted as indicative of disinhibition and frontal lobe damage. This study tested those interpretations by examining relationships between Stroop performance, behavioral disinhibition, and frontal lobe atrophy. METHOD: Participants were 112 patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia, recruited through UCSF's Memory and Aging Center. Participants received comprehensive dementia evaluations including structural MRI, neuropsychological testing, and informant interviews. Freesurfer, a semiautomated parcellation program, was used to analyze 1.5T MRI scans. Behavioral disinhibition was measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (Cummings, 1997; Cummings et al., 1994) Disinhibition Scale. The sample (n = 112) mean age was 65.40 (SD = 8.60) years, education was 16.64 (SD = 2.54) years, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein et al., 1975) was 26.63 (SD = 3.32). Hierarchical linear regressions were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Controlling for age, MMSE, and color naming, Stroop performance was not significantly associated with disinhibition (β = 0.01, ΔR² = 0.01, p = .29). Hierarchical regressions controlling for age, MMSE, color naming, intracranial volume, and temporal and parietal lobes, examined whether left or right hemisphere regions predict Stroop performance. Bilaterally, parietal lobe atrophy best predicted poorer Stroop (left: β = 0.0004, ΔR² = 0.02, p = .002; right: β = 0.0004, ΔR² = 0.02, p = .002). Of frontal regions, only dorsolateral prefrontal cortex atrophy predicted poorer Stroop (β = 0.001, ΔR² = 0.01, p = .03); left and right anterior cingulate cortex atrophy predicted better Stroop (left: β = -0.003, ΔR² = 0.01, p = .02; right: β = -0.004, ΔR² = 0.01, p = .02). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest Stroop performance is a poor measure of behavioral disinhibition and frontal lobe atrophy even among a relatively high-risk population. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: The Stroop (Stroop, 1935) is a frequently used neuropsychological test, with poor performance typically interpreted as indicative of disinhibition and frontal lobe damage. This study tested those interpretations by examining relationships between Stroop performance, behavioral disinhibition, and frontal lobe atrophy. METHOD:Participants were 112 patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia, recruited through UCSF's Memory and Aging Center. Participants received comprehensive dementia evaluations including structural MRI, neuropsychological testing, and informant interviews. Freesurfer, a semiautomated parcellation program, was used to analyze 1.5T MRI scans. Behavioral disinhibition was measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (Cummings, 1997; Cummings et al., 1994) Disinhibition Scale. The sample (n = 112) mean age was 65.40 (SD = 8.60) years, education was 16.64 (SD = 2.54) years, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein et al., 1975) was 26.63 (SD = 3.32). Hierarchical linear regressions were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Controlling for age, MMSE, and color naming, Stroop performance was not significantly associated with disinhibition (β = 0.01, ΔR² = 0.01, p = .29). Hierarchical regressions controlling for age, MMSE, color naming, intracranial volume, and temporal and parietal lobes, examined whether left or right hemisphere regions predict Stroop performance. Bilaterally, parietal lobe atrophy best predicted poorer Stroop (left: β = 0.0004, ΔR² = 0.02, p = .002; right: β = 0.0004, ΔR² = 0.02, p = .002). Of frontal regions, only dorsolateral prefrontal cortex atrophy predicted poorer Stroop (β = 0.001, ΔR² = 0.01, p = .03); left and right anterior cingulate cortex atrophy predicted better Stroop (left: β = -0.003, ΔR² = 0.01, p = .02; right: β = -0.004, ΔR² = 0.01, p = .02). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest Stroop performance is a poor measure of behavioral disinhibition and frontal lobe atrophy even among a relatively high-risk population. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Casey E Krueger; Victor Laluz; Howard J Rosen; John M Neuhaus; Bruce L Miller; Joel H Kramer Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Louise E Curley; Rob R Kydd; Michelle C Robertson; Avinesh Pillai; Nicolas McNair; HeeSeung Lee; Ian J Kirk; Bruce R Russell Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2015-04-19 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Kristine M Knutson; Olga Dal Monte; Selene Schintu; Eric M Wassermann; Vanessa Raymont; Jordan Grafman; Frank Krueger Journal: J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 2.198
Authors: Jordan Stiver; Adam M Staffaroni; Samantha M Walters; Michelle Y You; Kaitlin B Casaletto; Sabrina J Erlhoff; Katherine L Possin; Sladjana Lukic; Renaud La Joie; Gil D Rabinovici; Molly E Zimmerman; Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Joel H Kramer Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 4.373
Authors: Katherine L Possin; Serana K Chester; Victor Laluz; Alan Bostrom; Howard J Rosen; Bruce L Miller; Joel H Kramer Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Rajal G Cohen; Krystal A Klein; Mariko Nomura; Michael Fleming; Martina Mancini; Nir Giladi; John G Nutt; Fay B Horak Journal: J Parkinsons Dis Date: 2014 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Talia M Nir; Neda Jahanshad; Edgar Busovaca; Lauren Wendelken; Krista Nicolas; Paul M Thompson; Victor G Valcour Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Rebecca J Melrose; Stephanie Young; Gali H Weissberger; Laura Natta; Dylan Harwood; Mark Mandelkern; David L Sultzer Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 3.139