Table II.

Stroop studies included in the meta‐analysis

Author	Year	Design	n	Task/contrast	Activ.	IFJ
Banich	2000	bfMRI	10	Stroop word monitoring, I/N vs. N	4	(−48 10 34)
Banich	2001	bfMRI	14	CW Stroop, I/N vs. N	3	−42 10 34
Fan	2003	efMRI	12	CW Stroop, I vs. C	4c	—
Mead	2002	bfMRI	18	CW Stroop, I vs. N	1	−44 4 29
Milham	2001	e/bfMRI	16	CW Stroop, I vs. N (event‐related)	4	−42 2 36
Milham	2002	bfMRI	12a	CW Stroop, I vs. C/N	8	(−46 14 32)
Milham	2003	efMRI	16	CW Stroop, I vs. oddball neutral	9	—
Norris	2002	SE bfMRI	7	CW matching Stroop, I vs. N	6	−38 4 33
Potenza	2003	efMRI	11b	CW Stroop, I vs. C	6	43 7 35
Steel	2001	bfMRI	7	CW Stroop, I vs. N	14	—
Zysset	2001	bfMRI	9	CW matching Stroop, I vs. N	5	−38 5 30

^aYoung participants

^bControl group.

^cTransformed from MNI to Talairach space.

efMRI, event‐related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); bfMRI, blocked fMRI; SE, spin echo; e/b, mixed design; CW, color‐word; I, incongruent; C, congruent; N, neutral; Activ., number of frontal lobe activations; IFJ, activations within IFJ limits; activations close to IFJ are shown in parentheses.