Congruency effects on both numerical and non-numerical inhibition tasks occur in all three age groups, with an age-by-congruency interaction only on the numerical task¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 On the numerical inhibition task there was a significant interaction between age group and congruency (F(2,206) = 4.8, p = .009, ηp2 = .05), with significant congruency effects for all three age groups. → Camilla Gilmore 2015 q3 i3 On the non-numerical inhibition task there was a significant main effect of congruency but no interaction between age group and congruency. → Camilla Gilmore 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

Camilla Gilmore 2015¶

Camilla Gilmore, Sarah Keeble, Sophie Richardson, Lucy Cragg. (2015). The role of cognitive inhibition in different components of arithmetic. ZDM Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0659-y

q3 · i2 · associational · r2

Mixed-design ANOVA on accuracy for the dot comparison task with congruency as repeated-measures factor and age group as between-groups factor. The article reports "a significant interaction between age group and congruency (F(2,206) = 4.8, p = .009, ηp2 = .05)".

"There was also a significant interaction between age group and congruency (F(2,206) = 4.8, p = .009, η p 2 = .05; see Fig. 2). Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests revealed significant congruency effects for all three age groups (all ps < .001)."

Camilla Gilmore 2015 (2)¶

Camilla Gilmore, Sarah Keeble, Sophie Richardson, Lucy Cragg. (2015). The role of cognitive inhibition in different components of arithmetic. ZDM Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0659-y

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Mixed-design ANOVA on RTs for the animal-size Stroop task. The article reports a large congruency main effect (ηp2 = .80) with "RTs faster for congruent than for incongruent trials" and no age-by-congruency interaction.

"There was also a significant main effect of congruency (F(1,205) = 805.9, p < .001, ηp 2 = .80) with RTs faster for congruent than for incongruent trials. There was no interaction between age group and congruency (F(2,205) = 1.2, p = .302; see Fig. 2)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adolescents showed faster, more accurate, and less variable performance than children, with reward effects on inhibition accuracy differing by age — related
• Incongruent dot comparison trials are less accurate and slower than congruent trials, consistent with an added inhibition step — related
• Smaller response-time differences between incongruent and congruent trials (better inhibition) correlate with higher mathematics scores — related
• The association between nonsymbolic magnitude comparison and multiplication facts is similar across trial types (OTS/ANS range and congruency), and the symbolic comparison association is similar across numerical distances — related
• Children are more accurate and faster on NonStroop than Stroop trials of the Pet Store Stroop task — a narrower finding that bears on this claim