Adjustment of control in the numerical Stroop task

Abstract

In the numerical Stroop task, participants are asked to compare the physical sizes (physical task) or numerical values (numerical task) of two digits and ignore the irrelevant dimension. Participants are unable to ignore the irrelevant dimension as indicated by facilitation and interference effects. The literature suggests that there is asymmetry in the ability to adjust control in the physical and numerical tasks. The present study examined this suggestion in two experiments in which we manipulated the proportion of neutral/congruent trials in an experimental block. In addition, we examined the effects of control adjustment on the resolution of the task and informational conflicts. Our results suggest that adjustment of control can be bidirectional and is dependent on task requirements. Moreover, it might be easier to inhibit irrelevant information than to inhibit irrelevant task activation.

The Size Congruity Effect in Visual Search: Further Evidence for Late Interaction

“…Because the SCE results from the interaction between a semantic feature (numerical size) and a visual feature (physical size), it is a descendent of the classic wordcolor Stroop (1935) effect. Indeed, the size congruity effect is often called the numeri cal Stroop effect (e.g., Dadon & Henik, 2017). In the Stroop literature, word meaning and color are typically presumed to be processed in separate systems (Blais & Besner, 2006).…”

Processing symbolic magnitude information conveyed by number words and by scalar adjectives

“…The size congruity effect has been interpreted as evidence for two aspects of magnitude processing: automaticity of computation of numerical and physical size magnitude (e.g., Dadon & Henik, 2017;Henik & Tzelgov, 1982;Pansky & Algom, 1999;Tzelgov, Meyer, & Henik, 1992) and shared representations underlying numerical and size magnitudes (e.g., Arend & Henik, 2015;Cohen Kadosh, Lammertyn, & Izard, 2008;Schwarz & Heinze, 1998). Let us consider the first point.…”

“…On a strong automaticity account, no general processing resources would be required for computation or retrieval of magnitude. However, the congruity effect has been shown to be modulated (but not eliminated) by the discriminability of physical sizes and digit pairs as well as to some extent by practice and motivation, so strong automaticity can be ruled out (Algom, Dekel, & Pansky, 1996;Dadon & Henik, 2017;Pansky & Algom, 1999). Instead, the size and numerical magnitude computations seem to be automatic in the sense that activation of magnitude representations is obligatory (at least in the size congruity paradigm), but does require processing resources, and cognitive control can be exerted to some extent (Dadon & Henik, 2017;Pansky & Algom, 1999).…”

“…However, the congruity effect has been shown to be modulated (but not eliminated) by the discriminability of physical sizes and digit pairs as well as to some extent by practice and motivation, so strong automaticity can be ruled out (Algom, Dekel, & Pansky, 1996;Dadon & Henik, 2017;Pansky & Algom, 1999). Instead, the size and numerical magnitude computations seem to be automatic in the sense that activation of magnitude representations is obligatory (at least in the size congruity paradigm), but does require processing resources, and cognitive control can be exerted to some extent (Dadon & Henik, 2017;Pansky & Algom, 1999). 4 The size congruity effect has also been interpreted as evidence in favor of shared representations of numerical magnitude and physical size magnitude (but see Risko, Maloney, & Fugelsang, 2013;Santens & Verguts, 2011 for alternative interpretations, to be discussed below).…”

“…Note that automaticity of access of numerical (and size) magnitude in general is a prominent line of research of its own (e.g.,Dadon & Henik, 2017;Dehaene & Akhavein, 1995;Ford & Reynolds, 2016;Pansky & Algom, 2002;Wong & Szücs, 2013). Here, we are only concerned with automaticity specifically in the sense of processing of the magnitude of the irrelevant dimension in the set-up of the size congruity paradigm.…”