Role of attention and translation in conflict resolution: Implications for Stroop matching task interference.

Abstract

We studied the influence of attention on the timecourse of Stroop-like conflict. Thirty-two volunteers performed a Stroop matching task in which they had to compare either the color (n = 16) or meaning (n = 16) of two stimuli. The first stimulus was always a color-name printed in yellow, red, or blue (i.e., Stroop stimulus), and the second stimulus was either a color-bar (Experiment 1) or color-word in white ink (Experiment 2). Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was varied parametrically. Interference by incongruent Stroop stimuli was clearly modulated by SOA manipulation in both cases. The results are discussed in terms of interactions between translational and attentional models in which the degree of Stroop-like interference is attributed to time implementation of attentional mechanisms during color-to-color and color-to-word matching contexts.

The Stroop matching task presents conflict at both the response and nonresponse levels: An event‐related potential and electromyography study

“…The nonresponse conflict hypothesis fits into the translational account of the Stroop effect, which postulates that interference occurs when a response requires a translation step between the internal code of the relevant attribute to another code relevant to the response (e.g., during color‐to‐word or word‐to‐color comparisons in the case of Stroop matching tasks) (Virzi & Egeth, ). Supporting this interpretation, other studies using different matching task paradigms also observed a robust interference during between‐feature matching tasks and little or no interference during within‐feature matching tasks (Dyer, ; Luo, ; Machado‐Pinheiro et al., ; Sugg & McDonald, ).…”

“…In an attempt to understand these mechanisms, countless variations of the classic Stroop paradigm have been created. One of these iterations is the Stroop matching task, whereby congruent or incongruent Stroop stimuli are presented with either a colored bar, a row of colored Xs, or another color‐word printed in a neutral ink color (Durgin, ; Dyer, ; Goldfarb & Henik, ; Luo, ; Machado‐Pinheiro et al., ; Mascolo & Hirtle, ; Simon & Berbaum, ; Zysset, Muller, Lohmann, & von Cramon, ). To properly execute these tasks, participants must have in mind the relevant feature of the bidimensional Stroop stimulus and match it with another relevant dimension (e.g., the color of a colored bar).…”

Dynamics of a Stroop matching task: Effect of alcohol and reversal with training.

“…To execute this so-called Stroop matching task, participants must determine the relevant feature of the bidimensional Stroop stimulus and match this with the relevant dimension of a second stimulus. A conflict emerges from the interaction between the participant's goals (top-down influence) related to the relevant feature and stimulus-driven contingencies (bottom-up influence) related to the distracter feature (Machado-Pinheiro et al, 2010;David et al, 2011). An event-related potential study found that feature selection plays an important role in the Stroop matching task.…”

“…In a variation of the Stroop task, congruent (e.g., the word RED in red) or incongruent (e.g., the word BLUE in red) Stroop stimuli are presented with either a colored patch, a sequence of colored "X"s, or another color-word in neutral color (Treisman & Fearnley, 1969;Machado-Pinheiro et al, 2010;David et al, 2011). To execute this so-called Stroop matching task, participants must determine the relevant feature of the bidimensional Stroop stimulus and match this with the relevant dimension of a second stimulus.…”

The Stroop-matching task as a tool to study the correspondence effect using images of graspable and non-graspable objects

“…In this protocol, a congruent or incongruent Stroop stimulus is presented with another stimulus (e.g., a colored bar) and participants had to compare the relevant attributes of both stimuli according to the instructions (e.g., compare the word of the Stroop stimulus with the colored bar). After the pioneer work by Treisman and Fearnley (1969), several studies have explored the Stroop-matching task using different approaches in an attempt to better understand the interferences underlying the Stroop effect (Luo, 1999;Goldfarb & Henik, 2006;Caldas et al, 2012 and2014;Machado-Pinheiro et al, 2010;David et al, 2011;Dittrich & Stahl, 2017). In the classical Stroop task, response latencies for incongruent stimuli are longer than those for congruent stimuli -the congruency effect.…”