Activation of lexical and semantic representations without intention along GPC-sublexical and orthographic-lexical reading pathways in a Stroop paradigm.

Anton, Kathryn F.; Gould, Layla; Borowsky, Ron

doi:10.1037/a0035154

Cited by 9 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following Anton et al ( 2014 ), stimuli appeared in nine different font colors one-at-a-time, across four types of letter strings (CWs: e.g., “blue”; CWPHs: e.g., “bloo”; neutral words: e.g., “blow”; and neutral pseudohomophones: e.g., “bloe”; see Appendix in Supplementary Materials) in the center of a black screen. Stimuli were presented individually in bold, lowercase, 32-point Arial font.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The neutral letter strings were matched to the color letter strings for onset (same first phoneme), log word frequency HAL, length, number of orthographic neighbors, and number of phonographic neighbors [all t s (8) ≤ 0.815, p s ≥ 0.439] based on values from the E-Lexicon database ( http://elexicon.wustl.edu/ ; Balota et al, 2007 ). The pseudohomophones were generated to perfectly match their corresponding words in number of syllables and number of phonemes, see Anton et al ( 2014 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that Experiment 1 addresses the main question of what amount of interference and facilitation remains in the Stroop task when controlling for contingency effects, this design also lends itself to addressing the parallel question for color associate stimuli, which allows for the isolation of the semantic component of the Stroop effect. Although the Stroop effects found with color associate stimuli are assumed to reflect semantic processing (e.g., Klein, 1964 ; Augustinova and Ferrand, 2012 ; Anton et al, 2014 ), their effects in the classic design Stroop task (employing all combinations of font colors and words) may conflate semantic and contingency effects. Thus, Experiment 2 aimed to estimate the magnitude of semantic Stroop interference and facilitation in font color naming for CAs and CAPHs when contingency effects are controlled using pair-frequency matched neutral words.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the hypotheses proposed to account for Stroop effects, many have argued that both semantic conflict and response conflict make up the basis of Stroop effects (MacLeod, 1991 ; Botvinick et al, 2001 ; De Houwer, 2003 ; Kane and Engle, 2003 ; Roelofs, 2010 ; Anton et al, 2014 ). In the semantic processing account, multiple meanings from word and font color sources compete for processing resources in incongruent trials and converge to facilitate processing in congruent trials at a semantic input locus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The automaticity with which word meaning is accessed during color-naming has also been investigated using CW pseudohomophones (CWPHs; e.g., green spelled “ghrean”), which require phonetic decoding instead of whole word retrieval for semantic access (Anton et al, 2014 ). For instance, Dennis and Newstead ( 1981 ) had participants name the color of CWs, CWPHs and common word PHs matched to CWs for first letter and onset (i.e., first phoneme, e.g., grief spelled “greef”) when the font color was incongruent with the word (i.e., “greef” was never presented in green) and found significant interference for both CWs and CWPHs relative to neutral PHs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Disentangling Genuine Semantic Stroop Effects in Reading from Contingency Effects: On the Need for Two Neutral Baselines

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The automaticity of reading is often explored through the Stroop effect, whereby color-naming is affected by color words. Color associates (e.g., “sky”) also produce a Stroop effect, suggesting that automatic reading occurs through to the level of semantics, even when reading sub-lexically (e.g., the pseudohomophone “skigh”). However, several previous experiments have confounded congruency with contingency learning, whereby faster responding occurs for more frequent stimuli. Contingency effects reflect a higher frequency-pairing of the word with a font color in the congruent condition than in the incongruent condition due to the limited set of congruent pairings. To determine the extent to which the Stroop effect can be attributed to contingency learning of font colors paired with lexical (word-level) and sub-lexical (phonetically decoded) letter strings, as well as assess facilitation and interference relative to contingency effects, we developed two neutral baselines: each one matched on pair-frequency for congruent and incongruent color words. In Experiments 1 and 3, color words (e.g., “blue”) and their pseudohomophones (e.g., “bloo”) produced significant facilitation and interference relative to neutral baselines, regardless of whether the onset (i.e., first phoneme) was matched to the color words. Color associates (e.g., “ocean”) and their pseudohomophones (e.g., “oshin”), however, showed no significant facilitation or interference relative to onset matched neutral baselines (Experiment 2). When onsets were unmatched, color associate words produced consistent facilitation on RT (e.g., “ocean” vs. “dozen”), but pseudohomophones (e.g., “oshin” vs. “duhzen”) failed to produce facilitation or interference. Our findings suggest that the Stroop effects for color and associated stimuli are sensitive to the type of neutral baseline used, as well as stimulus type (word vs. pseudohomophone). In general, contingency learning plays a large role when repeating congruent items more than incongruent items, but appropriate pair-frequency matched neutral baselines allow for the assessment of genuine facilitation and interference. Using such baselines, we found reading processes proceed to a semantic level for familiar words, but not pseudohomophones (i.e., phonetic decoding). Such assessment is critical for separating the effects of genuine congruency from contingency during automatic word reading in the Stroop task, and when used with color associates, isolates the semantic contribution.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Disentangling Genuine Semantic Stroop Effects in Reading from Contingency Effects: On the Need for Two Neutral Baselines

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“To Name or Not to Name: That is the Question”: The Role of Response Inhibition in Reading

Cummine

Aalto

Ostevik

et al. 2018

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading is a complex process that includes the integration of information about letters (graphemes) and sounds (phonemes). In many circumstances, such as noisy environments, response inhibition is an additional factor that plays a marked role in successful oral reading. Response inhibition can take the form of task relevant inhibition (i.e., foils in a go/no-go task) and task irrelevant inhibition (i.e., distractor information). Here we investigated task relevant inhibition by having participants (N = 30) take part in two tasks: go/no-go naming with nonwords foils (GNG-NW) and go/no-go naming with pseudohomophones foils (GNG-PH). Also, we investigated the addition of task irrelevant inhibition by having participants (N = 28) take part in two tasks: GNG-NW + information masking and GNG-PH + information masking. We provide evidence that during a task relevant inhibition task, sub-word sound level information can be successfully inhibited, as evidenced by comparable response times for regular words and exception words, provided the foils do not contain familiar sound-based information (GNG-NW). In contrast, regular words were read aloud faster than exception words in a GNG-PH task, indicating that sub-word level interference occurs when the foils contain familiar sound-based information. The addition of task irrelevant inhibition (i.e., information masking at the phoneme level), served to increase response time overall, but did not impact the pattern of response times between regular words and exception words. Together these findings provide useful information regarding the role of response inhibition in word recognition and may be useful in computational models of word recognition and future work may benefit from accounting for the effects outlined in this paper.

show abstract

From lollipops to lidocaine: The need for a universal print-to-speech framework.

Cummine¹,

Cullum²,

Aalto³

et al. 2021

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: There is a strong relationship between reading and articulation (Lervåg & Hulme, 2009; Pan et al., 2011). Given the tight coupling of these processes, innovative approaches are needed to understand the intricacies associated with print-speech connections. Here we ran a series of tightly controlled experiments to examine the impact of mouth perturbations on silent reading. Method: We altered the mouth, via somatosensory feedback, in several ways: (a) a large lollipop in the mouth (E1), (b) a candy stick (bite bar) held horizontally between the teeth (E2), and (c) lidocaine that served to numb the mouth (E3). Three tasks were completed: (a) picture categorization, (b) “spell” lexical decision (Spell-LDT; “does the letter string spell a real word, yes or no?”), and (c) “sound” lexical decision (Sound-LDT; “does the letter string sound like a real word, yes or no?”). Participants (N = 97; E1 = 27; E2 = 32; E3 = 38) completed each of the tasks two times: once with a somatosensory perturbation (lollipop, bite bar, or lidocaine) and once without. Results: For each experiment, a linear mixed effects analysis was run. Overall, we found that the lollipop (E1) and lidocaine (E3) had some specific effects on word recognition (e.g., for “no” responses), particularly in the Spell-LDT, whereas the bite bar (E2) had no effect on word recognition. The picture categorization task was not impacted by any perturbations. Conclusion: These findings provide evidence that sensorimotor information is connected to reading. We discuss how these findings advance our understanding of a print-to-speech framework.

show abstract

Activation of lexical and semantic representations without intention along GPC-sublexical and orthographic-lexical reading pathways in a Stroop paradigm.

Cited by 9 publications

References 41 publications

Disentangling Genuine Semantic Stroop Effects in Reading from Contingency Effects: On the Need for Two Neutral Baselines

Disentangling Genuine Semantic Stroop Effects in Reading from Contingency Effects: On the Need for Two Neutral Baselines

“To Name or Not to Name: That is the Question”: The Role of Response Inhibition in Reading

From lollipops to lidocaine: The need for a universal print-to-speech framework.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About