Searched via Academic Hound · Powered by OpenAlex
Stroop Effect, Selective Attention & Executive Functioning in NVLD and ADHD
A literature review examining inhibitory control, conflict monitoring, and the executive function profiles of Nonverbal Learning Disability and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder — with reference to the Stroop paradigm as a core assay of selective attention.
Produced March 2026 · Academic Hound · Implicitify · 6 searches · OpenAlex open-access index
ACADEMIC HOUND SEARCH LOG — 6 QUERIES
All cited empirical papers retrieved through these Academic Hound queries (POST /api/search → OpenAlex pipeline).
"Stroop effect selective attention inhibition executive function"
- Salience Network & Executive Control (dACC)
- ACC and Response Conflict — Stroop/Go-NoGo
- IFG–STN White Matter & Inhibitory Control
- EF Tests, Stroop, Ecological Validity
- HRV, Prefrontal Function & Cognitive Performance
"ADHD attention inhibition executive function response control"
- EF Ratings vs Tests in Adult ADHD
- Continuous Performance Test & Sustained Attention in ADHD
- Right IFG–Striato–Cerebellar Networks & Response Inhibition
"nonverbal learning disability executive function attention cognitive control"
- Verbal & Visuospatial WM in Children — Separable?
- SLD Subtypes: Cognitive, Achievement, Emotional/Behavioral
- NVLD Resting-State EEG & Spatial Attention Networks
"Stroop ADHD interference color word"
- Left IFG Critical for Response Inhibition
- EF Ecological Validity: Stroop, TMT, WCST
"working memory updating shifting executive function prefrontal"
- Verbal Fluency: Updating & Inhibition as Predictors
- Prefrontal Neural Function & Cognitive Performance
- IQ Discrepancy Scores & Neural Correlates (NVLD-relevant)
"selective attention conflict monitoring anterior cingulate neural"
- Selective & Divided Attention PET — Shape, Color, Speed
- Salience Network / dACC & Executive Control
- ACC Response Conflict & Error Monitoring
1. The Stroop Effect — Paradigm & Theory
Interference, automaticity, and what the task actually measures
The Stroop Color-Word Task (Stroop, 1935; reviewed comprehensively by MacLeod, 1991) is one of the most replicated and widely used paradigms in cognitive psychology and clinical neuropsychology. In the classic version, participants are asked to name the ink color of a word, where the word itself is a color name. When the word and ink color are incongruent (e.g., the word "RED" printed in blue ink), response times are significantly slower and error rates higher compared to congruent trials or color patches without words.
Word and ink match → fast response
Word says RED, ink is blue → conflict → slower response
This difference (the "Stroop effect") is the primary dependent variable. Larger = more interference = less efficient inhibitory control.
The interference effect arises because reading words is a highly practiced, largely automatic process — it runs with minimal conscious resource allocation. Naming the ink color, by contrast, is a controlled, deliberate process that competes with the automatic reading response. The task therefore requires selective attention (attending to the relevant dimension — color — while ignoring the irrelevant dimension — word meaning) and response inhibition (suppressing the prepotent reading response in favor of the color-naming response).
MacLeod's (1991) review of over fifty years of Stroop research established it as a reliable individual difference measure and identified its core theoretical components: automaticity of reading, attentional selectivity, and response-level conflict. These components map directly onto the broader executive function literature, making the Stroop a clinically useful "assay" of inhibitory control and selective attention processes that are differentially impaired across neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric conditions.
2. Executive Function Framework
Miyake's three-factor model — inhibition, updating, shifting
Miyake and colleagues (2000) used latent variable analysis in a large sample to demonstrate that executive functions are both unified and diverse: correlated with one another (sharing a common variance) but separable into three distinct factors — inhibition, updating, and shifting. This framework has become the dominant organizing model for the EF literature and provides the analytical scaffold for comparing ADHD and NVLD.
| EF FACTOR | ADHD PROFILE | NVLD PROFILE | STROOP RELEVANCE |
|---|---|---|---|
| InhibitionSuppressing prepotent responses | Primary, severe deficit — core of Barkley's (1997) behavioral inhibition model; impaired across modalities | Variable; not a primary definitional deficit; inhibition of verbal responses relatively preserved | The Stroop interference score is primarily an inhibition measure — the key test of this factor |
| UpdatingMonitoring and revising working memory contents | Impaired — working memory updating deficits documented across tasks; n-back, WCST | Visuospatial WM updating specifically impaired; verbal WM updating relatively intact (Alloway et al., 2006) | Less directly tapped by standard Stroop; relevant to sustained Stroop performance over trials |
| ShiftingSwitching between mental sets | Impaired — difficulty transitioning between tasks; switching costs elevated | Spatial shifting specifically impaired; greater difficulty adapting cognitive sets in novel spatial contexts | Stroop switching variants (alternating congruent/incongruent) specifically engage this factor |
Barkley and Murphy (2010; n=146) demonstrated that in adult ADHD, both EF test performance and EF self-ratings were significantly impaired relative to controls, and that EF deficits predicted occupational impairment above and beyond ADHD diagnosis alone. Crucially, self-ratings of EF showed incremental predictive validity over tests — suggesting that formal testing, including the Stroop, may underestimate real-world EF failure in ADHD when compensatory strategies inflate laboratory performance.
Chaytor, Schmitter-Edgecombe, and Burr (2006) specifically addressed the ecological validity of standard EF tests including the Stroop Color-Word Test, Trail Making Test, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, and COWAT, finding that EF test batteries significantly predicted everyday cognitive functioning — but that compensatory strategy monitoring added significant predictive power beyond the tests alone. This is particularly relevant to NVLD, where verbal compensatory strategies may partially mask EF failures on standard testing.
3. Neural Substrates of Inhibitory Control & Selective Attention
ACC conflict monitoring, IFG–STN pathway, prefrontal-striatal circuits
ANTERIOR CINGULATE CORTEX (DACC)
Braver (2001) identified dACC as the conflict-monitoring hub: it detects simultaneous activation of incompatible response tendencies (the defining situation in the Stroop incongruent condition) and signals the need for top-down control. Seeley et al. (2007) confirmed dACC as an anchor of the salience network — the brain system responsible for detecting task-relevant signals requiring cognitive control.
RIGHT INFERIOR FRONTAL GYRUS (RIFG) → STN PATHWAY
Aron et al. (2007) used diffusion-weighted MRI to demonstrate that rIFG and the subthalamic nucleus (STN) are connected via a white matter tract that supports a "hyperdirect" stop pathway in the basal ganglia. Swick et al. (2008) extended this, showing left IFG is also critical for successful response inhibition. Rubia et al. (2007; n=21) documented linear age-related development of right IFG–striato–cerebellar networks during response inhibition tasks — with implications for understanding why inhibitory control is immature in childhood ADHD.
PREFRONTAL–PARIETAL SELECTIVE ATTENTION NETWORK
Corbetta et al. (1991) used PET to delineate the neural systems involved in selective vs. divided attention across visual attributes (shape, color, speed). Selective attention to color specifically — the relevant dimension in the Stroop color-naming condition — engages a separable prefrontal-parietal network from other attention modes. Nobre (1997) further characterized the visuospatial attention system. Thayer et al. (2009) established that prefrontal neural function — indexed by heart rate variability — correlates with cognitive performance on EF tasks.
The neural story of Stroop performance thus involves at minimum three interacting systems: (1) the conflict monitoring system (dACC) detecting the response competition; (2) the inhibitory control system (IFG–STN pathway) suppressing the prepotent reading response; and (3) the selective attention system (prefrontal-parietal network) maintaining focus on the relevant stimulus dimension (ink color) against competition from the irrelevant dimension (word meaning).
These systems develop across childhood and adolescence — Rubia et al. (2007) documented linear age-correlated development of the right IFG–striato–cerebellar inhibitory network — and are differentially disrupted in ADHD (primarily the inhibitory control system) and NVLD (primarily the visuospatial selective attention component).
4. ADHD: The Inhibitory Control Disorder
Barkley's model, Stroop performance, sustained attention, and adult outcomes
4.1 Behavioral Inhibition as the Core Deficit
Barkley's (1997) influential model proposed that ADHD is fundamentally a disorder of behavioral inhibition — the capacity to: (1) inhibit an initial prepotent response; (2) stop an ongoing response; and (3) protect the execution of goal-directed behavior from interference by competing events. All secondary EF deficits in ADHD — working memory failures, poor self-regulation, impaired planning, emotional dysregulation — cascade from this primary inhibitory failure. Under this model, the Stroop task is nearly a direct assay of ADHD's core cognitive deficit.
4.2 Stroop Performance in ADHD
The empirical literature consistently shows enlarged Stroop interference effects in ADHD relative to controls. The mechanisms contributing to this enlarged effect include:
ADHD — MECHANISMS OF ELEVATED STROOP INTERFERENCE
- Deficient response inhibition: The IFG–STN "stop" pathway fails to efficiently suppress the prepotent reading response, allowing it to compete longer with the color-naming response → larger interference effect
- Impaired conflict monitoring: dACC conflict detection is less efficient → slower detection of when additional top-down control is needed → trials take longer to resolve
- Working memory failures: Difficulty maintaining the "name the color" task set across trials → more drift toward the dominant reading response on later trials
- Sustained attention failures: Performance decrements over the sustained portion of the task — Riccio et al. (2002) documented that CPT sustained attention performance is specifically impaired in ADHD, and similar patterns emerge on lengthened Stroop administrations
- Intraindividual variability: ADHD is characterized by high trial-to-trial variability in reaction times — producing inconsistent but on-average slower and more error-prone performance
4.3 Adult ADHD and EF: Testing vs. Real-World Performance
Barkley and Murphy (2010; n=146) made a finding with direct clinical implications for Stroop interpretation: EF self-ratings showed superior prediction of occupational impairment compared to EF tests. They argued that formal EF tests — conducted in quiet, structured, low-distraction settings with clear instructions — underestimate the severity of EF failure in naturalistic conditions where ADHD's inhibitory deficits are most expressed. An ADHD adult may perform at near-normal levels on a brief Stroop in a neuropsychology office while failing severely at equivalent cognitive demands in real work environments.
Chaytor et al. (2006) converged on this finding from the ecological validity direction: a battery including the Stroop predicted everyday functioning, but adding information about compensatory strategy use and environmental cognitive demands significantly improved prediction. The clinical implication is that normalized or near-normalized Stroop scores in adult ADHD do not rule out functionally significant inhibitory control failures.
4.4 Sustained Attention — The CPT and Its Stroop Parallels
Riccio and colleagues (2002) reviewed the continuous performance test (CPT) as a neural substrate marker for sustained attention, noting that CPT deficits are highly sensitive to ADHD specifically. The CPT and the Stroop share the demand for sustained vigilance over time — both require maintaining an attentional set against competing response tendencies across dozens or hundreds of trials. ADHD's failure on the CPT predicts Stroop decrement patterns, particularly in the later trials of a lengthened administration.
5. NVLD: Selective Attention & EF in a Visuospatial Processing Deficit
Where spatial attention disruption meets an intact verbal channel
5.1 The NVLD Cognitive Architecture Reviewed
NVLD's defining feature is a severe primary visuospatial processing deficit — poor spatial reasoning, visual memory, psychomotor coordination, and nonverbal perception — paired with intact or superior verbal processing. Rourke's (1995) neuropsychological model attributes this to disrupted right hemisphere white matter, particularly long association fibers and the corpus callosum, producing a reliable deficit cascade: visuospatial processing → mathematics → psychomotor skills → tactile-perceptual skills → novel problem-solving → social perception.
Coccaro and colleagues (2023) provided direct neuroimaging evidence using resting-state HD-EEG, finding that NVLD is associated with disrupted dynamic reconfiguration of spatial attention cortical networks even at rest — demonstrating that the spatial attentional architecture itself is atypically organized in NVLD, not merely recruited differently on tasks. Margolis and colleagues (2013; n=83) showed that verbal-nonverbal IQ discrepancy scores (the NVLD signature) have specific neural correlates in frontoparietal networks, anatomically distinct from the determinants of general intelligence.
5.2 EF in NVLD — What Is and Is Not Impaired
EF in NVLD is not globally deficient in the way it is in ADHD. The profile is selective and architecturally distinct:
NVLD — SELECTIVE EF DEFICIT PROFILE
- Spatial EF specifically impaired: Visuospatial working memory, spatial planning (Tower tasks with visuospatial demands), navigation and spatial orientation
- Verbal EF relatively preserved: Verbal working memory capacity, verbal fluency, phonological processing, verbal reasoning — these are typically strengths
- Novel problem-solving impaired: Difficulty with situations requiring adaptation of strategies to new, spatially complex contexts — not because of inhibitory control failure but because the visuospatial substrate for novel schema construction is deficient
- Alloway et al. (2006) demonstrated that verbal and visuospatial WM are separable constructs in children — NVLD's dissociation profile (impaired visuospatial WM, intact verbal WM) fits exactly this separability
- Processing speed: Psychomotor speed is impaired; affects timed EF tasks broadly but through a motor output mechanism rather than inhibitory failure
- Emotional regulation: Secondary EF-like failures in social contexts — misreading social cues generates emotional reactivity that disrupts behavioral regulation — but this is not the same deficit mechanism as ADHD's inhibitory failure
5.3 Spatial Attention Networks in NVLD
Coccaro et al. (2023) is the most specific neuroimaging evidence to date for NVLD's attentional architecture. Using high-density EEG at rest, they found that NVLD individuals showed disrupted dynamic reconfiguration of spatial attention cortical networks — networks that are responsible for directing attentional resources in space, maintaining spatial working memory, and guiding spatially organized action. This is the neural substrate through which NVLD's spatial EF deficits operate: the attentional networks themselves are disrupted, not just the downstream cognitive outputs.
This finding has direct implications for Stroop performance: color perception and spatial location of stimuli in the Stroop array depend on the same visuospatial attentional networks that are disrupted in NVLD. The ability to selectively attend to ink color (a spatially presented visual attribute) while suppressing word meaning (a verbal, over-learned response) may be differentially affected by NVLD's visuospatial attentional disruption — not because of deficient verbal inhibition but because of impaired spatial attribute selection.
5.4 NVLD Subtypes and EF Variability
Hain (2009; n=113) identified distinct learning disability subtypes that differed across cognitive, achievement, and emotional/behavioral variables. The NVLD-proximal profiles showed specific cognitive patterns including visuospatial-processing deficits paired with emotional and behavioral comorbidities — consistent with the view that EF-like behavioral regulation failures in NVLD are secondary to accumulated distress and anxiety rather than primary inhibitory control deficits of the ADHD type.
6. Stroop Performance: ADHD vs. NVLD — Mechanisms & Predictions
How the same task captures different deficit architectures
ADHD — STROOP PROFILE
- Interference effect: Enlarged — primary finding across the ADHD Stroop literature
- Mechanism: Inhibitory control failure — the reading response is not efficiently suppressed
- Error pattern: More commission errors on incongruent trials (naming the word color, not the ink color)
- Across-trial variability: High intraindividual RT variability — inconsistent performance
- Sustained performance: Significant decrement over trials — consistent with sustained attention failure (CPT parallel)
- Condition sensitivity: Incongruent condition specifically impaired; congruent and color patch baseline relatively normal
- Compensatory boost: Performance may be artificially inflated in brief, structured testing — ecological validity limitation (Barkley & Murphy, 2010)
NVLD — STROOP PROFILE
- Interference effect: Potentially elevated through a different mechanism — slower color discrimination in the visuospatial channel, not a verbal inhibition failure
- Mechanism: Visuospatial selective attention deficit — difficulty isolating and attending to color as a spatial visual attribute; spatial attention networks disrupted (Coccaro et al., 2023)
- Word reading: Typically fast and automatized (a verbal strength in NVLD) — the reading response itself may be even more dominant than in controls
- Color naming baseline: May be specifically slowed — naming a visual color attribute requires the spatial-attentional processing that is deficient in NVLD
- Psychomotor contribution: Slowed overall processing speed inflates all conditions; affects timed score interpretation
- Profile distinction: Baseline color naming slowing + relatively intact inhibitory error pattern (unlike ADHD's commission errors) + high verbal channel dominance
MECHANISTIC DISTINCTION — THE CRITICAL PARSING
The Stroop paradigm involves two separable processes that are often conflated: (A) inhibiting the word-reading response and (B) successfully selecting and naming the ink color. These processes can fail independently:
In ADHD, process A is primarily impaired — the reading response is inadequately inhibited, producing commission errors and slowed conflict resolution on incongruent trials. Process B may be relatively intact in ADHD when the response is not in competition.
In NVLD, process B may be specifically impaired — color as a visual attribute requires the kind of spatial perceptual selective attention that is disrupted in NVLD. The color naming baseline condition (no words, just color patches) may already be slower in NVLD even without the word-reading competition. Process A — verbal inhibition — may be relatively intact in NVLD because the verbal channel is a strength.
This mechanistic distinction predicts a dissociation in Stroop profiles: ADHD should show the largest deficit on incongruent vs. congruent comparisons (the interference effect specifically), while NVLD should show a broader slowing pattern that affects color-naming conditions generally — with the interference effect potentially less uniquely enlarged than in ADHD.
7. Cross-Cutting Comparison
Selective attention, EF factors, and Stroop components side by side
| FEATURE | ADHD | NVLD |
|---|---|---|
| Primary EF deficit | Inhibitory control — global, cross-modal ADHD | Visuospatial processing and spatial EF — modality-specific NVLD |
| Miyake inhibition factor | Severely impaired — core deficit Key discriminator | Relatively preserved for verbal inhibition; spatial inhibition variable Key discriminator |
| Miyake updating factor | Impaired — general WM updating across modalities ADHD | Visuospatial WM updating impaired; verbal WM updating intact (Alloway et al., 2006) NVLD |
| Miyake shifting factor | Impaired — task-switching costs elevated ADHD | Spatial set-shifting impaired; verbal set-shifting less affected NVLD |
| Stroop interference effect (incongruent − congruent) | Enlarged — primary finding; driven by inadequate reading-response inhibition ADHD | Potentially elevated through different mechanism — impaired color attribute selection; less consistent across literature NVLD |
| Stroop baseline (color patches only) | Typically close to normal ADHD | May be specifically slower — color as spatial-visual attribute requires impaired processing NVLD |
| Word reading speed on Stroop | May be fast (reading automaticity intact); conflict is at response selection ADHD | Typically fast or very fast — verbal reading is a strength in NVLD NVLD |
| Commission errors (reading word instead of naming color) | Elevated — inhibition failure allows word response to "win" Key discriminator | Not expected as primary error type; errors may reflect perceptual uncertainty about color Key discriminator |
| Intraindividual RT variability | High — characteristic of ADHD; reflects lapsing attention and inconsistent inhibitory control ADHD | Not elevated in the same ADHD-specific way; more consistent but globally slower for spatial conditions NVLD |
| Sustained attention (over trial block) | Significant decrement — CPT-parallel performance failure over time ADHD | Less characteristically impaired — not a sustained attention/vigilance disorder per se NVLD |
| Neural substrate implicated | dACC conflict monitoring, IFG–STN inhibitory pathway, fronto-striatal circuits (Braver, 2001; Aron et al., 2007; Rubia et al., 2007) ADHD | Right hemisphere white matter, corpus callosum, spatial attention networks (Coccaro et al., 2023; Margolis et al., 2013) NVLD |
| Verbal fluency / verbal EF | May be impaired — verbal WM and verbal updating affected ADHD | Relative strength — verbal fluency, letter fluency typically preserved or superior NVLD |
| Stroop ecological validity caveat | Laboratory performance may underestimate real-world EF failure — brief, structured testing inflates scores (Barkley & Murphy, 2010) Both | Verbal compensation strategies may elevate performance — spatial deficits may be verbally circumvented in testing (Chaytor et al., 2006) Both |
| Response to stimulant medication | Stroop interference typically improves with stimulant treatment — supports dopaminergic-prefrontal mechanism ADHD | Stimulants not indicated for NVLD; Stroop profile not expected to respond NVLD |
8. Clinical Implications
Assessment, differential interpretation, and intervention
8.1 Stroop as Differential Diagnostic Tool
When interpreting Stroop results in children or adults presenting with attentional complaints, the pattern of performance across conditions carries more diagnostic weight than the overall interference score alone. An elevated interference effect with a normal baseline, high commission error rate, and high within-session variability points toward ADHD-type inhibitory control failure. A generally slowed color-naming profile across conditions (including the baseline) with a lower verbal reading time and fewer commission errors points more toward NVLD-type visuospatial selective attention disruption.
Chaytor et al. (2006) showed that the Stroop, as part of an EF battery, predicts everyday cognitive functioning — but that ecological validity is improved by attending to qualitative performance features and compensatory strategy use, not just quantitative scores. Clinicians assessing ADHD vs. NVLD should note whether patients verbalize their way through the task (a verbal compensatory strategy more characteristic of NVLD) or show abrupt lapses and inconsistencies (more characteristic of ADHD's sustained attention failure).
8.2 Working Memory Assessment — Modality Matters
Alloway, Gathercole, and Pickering (2006) established that verbal and visuospatial WM are separable in children. Clinically, this means that WM tests must be administered across modalities to correctly characterize the profile: ADHD shows global WM impairment, while NVLD shows a selective visuospatial WM deficit with intact verbal WM. A comprehensive WM battery that includes only verbal tests will miss NVLD's profile and may falsely suggest normal WM in NVLD patients — or falsely suggest NVLD when ADHD is the correct diagnosis.
8.3 Intervention Implications
Because the underlying deficit mechanisms differ, evidence-based interventions differ:
ADHD — INTERVENTION TARGETS
- Pharmacological: stimulant and non-stimulant medications reduce inhibitory control failures; Stroop interference improves with effective stimulant treatment
- Cognitive training: inhibitory control training and working memory interventions; best evidence for WM programs targeting verbal and spatial updating
- Environmental: reduce distractors, structure, external cuing to compensate for internal inhibitory failures
- Self-monitoring: teaching explicit self-regulation strategies to compensate for automatic inhibitory failures
NVLD — INTERVENTION TARGETS
- Verbalization strategies: explicitly naming visual-spatial information in words to recruit intact verbal channel
- Spatial EF scaffolding: external spatial organizers (maps, written schedules, spatial templates) compensate for internal spatial planning deficits
- Occupational therapy: fine motor and psychomotor remediation
- Explicit social coaching: verbal scripts for nonverbal social situations — using the verbal strength to compensate for visuospatial social perception failure
- Stimulant medication: not indicated as primary treatment; any attentional benefit is nonspecific
8.4 The Risk of Conflation
ADHD and NVLD frequently co-occur, and both produce attentional complaints, academic difficulties, and poor organizational skills. Both can present with elevated scores on ADHD rating scales. The critical distinction is the spatial processing profile: NVLD children and adults show visuospatial deficits on testing (Block Design, Visual Reproduction, spatial navigation tasks) that are not characteristic of ADHD. Conversely, ADHD produces cross-modal sustained attention and inhibitory control failures that are not a defining feature of NVLD. In cases of diagnostic uncertainty, a full neuropsychological battery including spatial subtests, both verbal and visuospatial WM, processing speed, and the Stroop (administered with attention to cross-condition patterns) is necessary for reliable differentiation.
References
All empirical papers via Academic Hound · OpenAlex pipeline
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77(6), 1698–1716. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00968.xAron, A. R., Behrens, T. E. J., Smith, S. M., Frank, M. J., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007). Triangulating a cognitive control network using diffusion-weighted MRI and functional MRI. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(14), 3743–3752. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0519-07.2007Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 65–94.
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R. (2010). Impairment in occupational functioning and adult ADHD: The predictive utility of executive function (EF) ratings versus EF tests. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25(3), 157–173. n=146. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acq014Braver, T. S. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex and response conflict: Effects of frequency, inhibition and errors. Cerebral Cortex, 11(9), 825–836. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1093/cercor/11.9.825Chaytor, N., Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., & Burr, R. (2006). Improving the ecological validity of executive functioning assessment. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21(3), 217–227. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.12.002Coccaro, A., Di Bono, M. G., Maffei, A., Orefice, C., & Lievore, R. (2023). Resting state dynamic reconfiguration of spatial attention cortical networks and visuospatial functioning in non-verbal learning disability (NVLD): A HD-EEG investigation. Brain Sciences, 13(5), 731. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13050731Corbetta, M., Miezin, F. M., Dobmeyer, S., Shulman, G. L., & Petersen, S. E. (1991). Selective and divided attention during visual discriminations of shape, color, and speed: Functional anatomy by positron emission tomography. Journal of Neuroscience, 11(8), 2383–2402. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.11-08-02383.1991Hain, L. A. (2009). Exploration of specific learning disability subtypes differentiated across cognitive, achievement, and emotional/behavioral variables [Doctoral dissertation, PCOM]. n=113. via Academic Hound
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203.
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163Margolis, A., Bansal, R., Hao, X., Algermissen, M., & Erickson, C. A. (2013). Using IQ discrepancy scores to examine the neural correlates of specific cognitive abilities. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(35), 14135–14145. n=83. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0775-13.2013Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.
doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734Riccio, C. A., Reynolds, C., Lowe, P. A., & Moore, J. J. (2002). The continuous performance test: A window on the neural substrates for attention? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17(3), 235–272. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1093/arclin/17.3.235Rourke, B. P. (1995). Syndrome of Nonverbal Learning Disabilities: Neurodevelopmental Manifestations. Guilford Press.
Rubia, K., Smith, A., Taylor, E., & Brammer, M. (2007). Linear age-correlated functional development of right inferior fronto-striato-cerebellar networks during response inhibition and anterior cingulate during error-related processes. Human Brain Mapping, 28(11), 1163–1177. n=21. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20347Seeley, W. W., Menon, V., Schatzberg, A. F., Keller, J., & Glover, G. H. (2007). Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(9), 2349–2356. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5587-06.2007Shao, Z., Janse, E., Visser, K., & Meyer, A. S. (2014). What do verbal fluency tasks measure? Predictors of verbal fluency performance in older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 772. n=82. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00772Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.
doi.org/10.1037/h0054651Swick, D., Ashley, V., & Turken, A. U. (2008). Left inferior frontal gyrus is critical for response inhibition. BMC Neuroscience, 9, 102. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-9-102Thayer, J. F., Hansen, A. L., Saus-Rose, E., & Johnsen, B. H. (2009). Heart rate variability, prefrontal neural function, and cognitive performance. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37(2), 141–153. via Academic Hound
doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9101-z