Cognitive Task Report
Variable Tempo Stroop — Experimental
High tempo amplification (TAR = 3.35): Stroop interference grew substantially as the pace accelerated, indicating a structural inhibitory cost.
You completed 40 scored trials (16 congruent, 24 incongruent) across four tempo blocks. Accuracy dropped substantially under the fastest tempo (60 % of slowest-block accuracy).
What This Task Measures
The Variable Tempo Stroop measures three constructs of executive control by administering a colour-word Stroop task across four blocks that shrink the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) from 1000 ms to 250 ms.
Tempo Amplification Ratio (TAR) is Stroop interference at the fastest block divided by interference at the slowest block. TAR > 1 means the cost of overriding the word grows as the pace accelerates — a structural property of inhibitory capacity under speed pressure.
Dynamic Inhibition (DI) is the least-squares slope of interference regressed on tempo rank (0 = slowest). A positive slope means interference adds more milliseconds per tempo step; a higher value means inhibitory control degrades faster under time pressure.
Executive Flexibility (EF) is accuracy at the fastest block divided by accuracy at the slowest block, expressed as a percentage. Near 100 % means accuracy was maintained under the highest pace — flexible control. Lower values indicate the tempo exceeded error-monitoring capacity.
Experimental status: These constructs are theoretically motivated but the specific TAR/DI/EF operationalization and the four-level ISI schedule used here have not appeared in peer-reviewed psychometric validation studies. Results are therefore labelled experimental and reported without a normative comparison.
Performance Indices
These figures describe this respondent's own within-session performance — reaction-time differences and accuracy across conditions. Where a published reference distribution exists, a percentile within that sample is shown alongside the raw value; otherwise only the raw effect is reported.
| Total trials scored | 40 |
| Overall accuracy | 82% |
| ─ | ─ |
| Block 1 (ISI 1000 ms) — congruent RT | 531 ms |
| Block 1 (ISI 1000 ms) — incongruent RT | 619 ms |
| Block 1 (ISI 1000 ms) — Stroop interference | 88 ms |
| Block 1 (ISI 1000 ms) — accuracy | 100% |
| Block 2 (ISI 700 ms) — congruent RT | 525 ms |
| Block 2 (ISI 700 ms) — incongruent RT | 679 ms |
| Block 2 (ISI 700 ms) — Stroop interference | 154 ms |
| Block 2 (ISI 700 ms) — accuracy | 90% |
| Block 3 (ISI 450 ms) — congruent RT | 549 ms |
| Block 3 (ISI 450 ms) — incongruent RT | 734 ms |
| Block 3 (ISI 450 ms) — Stroop interference | 186 ms |
| Block 3 (ISI 450 ms) — accuracy | 80% |
| Block 4 (ISI 250 ms) — congruent RT | 557 ms |
| Block 4 (ISI 250 ms) — incongruent RT | 852 ms |
| Block 4 (ISI 250 ms) — Stroop interference | 294 ms |
| Block 4 (ISI 250 ms) — accuracy | 60% |
| ─ | ─ |
| Tempo Amplification Ratio (TAR) — intf(fastest) / intf(slowest) | 3.35 |
| Dynamic Inhibition (DI) — interference slope (ms per tempo step) | +65 ms/step |
| Executive Flexibility (EF) — accuracy maintained fastest vs slowest | 60% |
Method & Limitations
All three constructs (TAR, DI, EF) are computed within-person against your own slowest-tempo baseline. No population norm is applied: there is no percentile and no T-score, because this specific ISI-varied Stroop operationalization has not been validated against a published reference sample. The task is experimental — constructs are theoretically grounded but have not yet appeared in peer-reviewed literature as defined here. Results are indicative, not diagnostic.
References
- Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.
- MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203.
- Eidels, A., Townsend, J. T., & Algom, D. (2010). Comparing perception of Stroop stimuli in focused versus divided attention paradigms: Evidence for dramatic processing differences. Cognition, 114(2), 129–150.