The present study suggests that the idea that Stroop interference originates from multiple components may gain theoretically from integrating two independent frameworks. The first framework is represented by the well-known notion of “semantic gradient” of interference and the second one is the distinction between two types of conflict – the task and the informational conflict – giving rise to the interference (MacLeod and MacDonald, 2000; Goldfarb and Henik, 2007). The proposed integration led to the conclusion that two (i.e., orthographic and lexical components) of the four theoretically distinct components represent task conflict, and the other two (i.e., indirect and direct informational conflict components) represent informational conflict. The four components were independently estimated in a series of experiments. The results confirmed the contribution of task conflict (estimated by a robust orthographic component) and of informational conflict (estimated by a strong direct informational conflict component) to Stroop interference. However, the performed critical review of the relevant literature (see General Discussion), as well as the results of the experiments reported, showed that the other two components expressing each type of conflict (i.e., the lexical component of task conflict and the indirect informational conflict) were small and unstable. The present analysis refines our knowledge of the origins of Stroop interference by providing evidence that each type of conflict has its major and minor contributions. The implications for cognitive control of an automatic reading process are also discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The color-word Stroop task produces both information conflict (detection of the ink color vs. word meaning) and task conflict (respond to the ink color vs. read the word). In the present study we measured both reaction time and pupil dilation, and the neutral stimuli in our study were non-readable letter strings as well as meaningless non-readable stimuli (i.e., colored patches and abstract character strings). Our results showed slowest responses in the incongruent trials and fastest responses in the congruent trials. However, no differences were found between the investigated neutrals. In contrast, pupil dilation was largest in the incongruent trials and smallest in the neutral trials. Moreover, the more the neutral stimuli were meaningless, the less the pupil dilation that was observed. Our results suggest that non-word meaningless stimuli reduced task conflict (compared to all the investigated conditions). Neutral equivalence should be taken into consideration in Stroop and Stroop-like tasks.