Behavioral and electrophysiological investigation of semantic and response conflict in the Stroop task

Augustinova, Maria; Silvert, Lætitia; Ferrand, Ludovic; Llorca, Pierre Michel; Flaudias, Valentin

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0697-z

Cited by 28 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results replicate previous reports in the literature (e.g., Augustinova & Ferrand, 2012;Augustinova et al 2010;Augustinova et al 2015;Labuschagne & Besner, 2015;Manwell et al 2004). According to reports by Spieler et al (1996) and Heathcote et al (1991), the standard Stroop effect yields effects on the mean of the normal distribution (mu), the standard deviation of the normal distribution (sigma), and the tail (tau).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in the semantic Stroop effect (SSE; e.g., Augustinova & Ferrand, 2012, 2014Augustinova, Flaudias, & Ferrand, 2010;Augustinova, Silvert, Ferrand, Llorca, & Flaudias, 2015;Labuschagne & Besner, 2015;Manwell, Roberts, & Besner, 2004;Risko, Schmidt, & Besner, 2006;Schmidt & Cheesman, 2005). The semantic manipulation consists of color-associated words (e.g., the word sky, associated with …”

Section: The Semantic Stroop Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the color blue) and is taken to primarily reflect semantic processing (competition at the semantic level if the word and color are incongruent), rather than response competition (as is assumed to be a large component of the standard Stroop effect, which uses color words that appear in the response set; see, e.g., Augustinova & Ferrand, 2014;Augustinova et al 2015). Despite a resurgence of interest in the SSE, no exGaussian analysis of this effect has been reported to date.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The semantic Stroop effect: An ex-Gaussian analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous analyses of the standard Stroop effect (which typically uses color words that form part of the response set) have documented effects on mean reaction times in hundreds of experiments in the literature. Less well known is the fact that ex-Gaussian analyses reveal that such effects are seen in (a) the mean of the normal distribution (mu), as well as in (b) the standard deviation of the normal distribution (sigma) and (c) the tail (tau). No ex-Gaussian analysis exists in the literature with respect to the semantically based Stroop effect (which contrasts incongruent color-associated words with, e.g., neutral controls). In the present experiments, we investigated whether the semantically based Stroop effect is also seen in the three ex-Gaussian parameters. Replicating previous reports, color naming was slower when the color was carried by an irrelevant (but incongruent) colorassociated word (e.g., sky, tomato) than when the control items consisted of neutral words (e.g., keg, palace) in each of four experiments. An ex-Gaussian analysis revealed that this semantically based Stroop effect was restricted to the arithmetic mean and mu; no semantic Stroop effect was observed in tau. These data are consistent with the views (1) that there is a clear difference in the source of the semantic Stroop effect, as compared to the standard Stroop effect (evidenced by the presence vs. absence of an effect on tau), and (2) that interference associated with response competition on incongruent trials in tau is absent in the semantic Stroop effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: The Semantic Stroop Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The semantic Stroop effect: An ex-Gaussian analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to this model, the presence and magnitude of conflict effects, such as those in the Stroop or Simon tasks, are determined by the overlaps between stimulus and/or response dimensions (see also, Augustinova, Silvert, Ferrand, Llorca, & Flaudias, 2015;De Houwer, 2003, 2004Melara & Algom, 2003;Risko, Schmidt, & Besner, 2006;Schmidt & Cheesman, 2005). Of particular importance, distracting stimuli are said to interfere to the extent that they overlap with responses.…”

Section: Alternative Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best not to bet on the horserace: A comment on Forrin and MacLeod (2017) and a relevant stimulus-response compatibility view of colour-word contingency learning asymmetries

Schmidt

2017

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One powerfully robust method for the study of human contingency learning is the colour-word contingency learning paradigm. In this task, participants respond to the print colour of neutral words, each of which is presented most often in one colour. The contingencies between words and colours are learned, as indicated by faster and more accurate responses when words are presented in their expected colour relative to an unexpected colour. In a recent report, Forrin and MacLeod (in press) asked to what extent this performance (i.e., response time) measure of learning might depend on the relative speed of processing of the word and the colour. With keypress responses, learning effects were comparable when responding to the word and to the colour (contrary to predictions).However, an asymmetry appeared in a second experiment with vocal responses, with a contingency effect only present for colour identification. In a third experiment, the colour was pre-exposed, and contingency effects were again roughly symmetrical. In their report, they suggested that a simple speed-of-processing (or "horserace") model might explain when contingency effects are observed in colour and word identification. In the present report, an alternative view is presented. In particular, it is argued that the results are best explained by appealing to the notion of relevant stimulus-response compatibility, which also resolves discrepancies between horserace model predictions and participant results. The paper presents simulations with the Parallel Episodic Processing model to demonstrate this case.

show abstract

“…BLUE green ) Stroop words (e.g. Augustinova et al, for N400‐like evidence). Consequently, the significant difference in mean response latencies between color‐associated and color‐neutral trials (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stroop interference is a composite phenomenon: Evidence from distinct developmental trajectories of its components

Ferrand

Ducrot

Chaussé

et al. 2019

Developmental Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Only one previous developmental study of Stroop task performance (Schiller, 1966) has controlled for differences in processing speed that exist both within and between age groups. Therefore, the question of whether the early developmental change in the magnitude of Stroop interference actually persists after controlling for processing speed needs further investigation; work that is further motivated by the possibility that any remaining differences would be caused by process(es) other than processing speed. Analysis of data from two experiments revealed that, even after controlling for processing speed using z‐transformed reaction times, early developmental change persists such that the magnitude of overall Stroop interference is larger in 3rd‐ and 5th graders as compared to 1st graders. This pattern indicates that the magnitude of overall Stroop interference peaks after 2 or 3 years of reading practice (Schadler & Thissen, 1981). Furthermore, this peak is shown to be due to distinct components of Stroop interference (resulting from specific conflicts) progressively falling into place. Experiment 2 revealed that the change in the magnitude of Stroop interference specifically results from joint contributions of task, semantic and response conflicts in 3rd‐ and 5th graders as compared to a sole contribution of task conflict in 1st graders. The specific developmental trajectories of different conflicts presented in the present work provide unique evidence for multiple loci of Stroop interference in the processing stream (respectively task, semantic and response conflict) as opposed to a single (i.e. response) locus predicted by historically – favored response competition accounts.

show abstract

Behavioral and electrophysiological investigation of semantic and response conflict in the Stroop task

Cited by 28 publications

References 20 publications

The semantic Stroop effect: An ex-Gaussian analysis

The semantic Stroop effect: An ex-Gaussian analysis

Best not to bet on the horserace: A comment on Forrin and MacLeod (2017) and a relevant stimulus-response compatibility view of colour-word contingency learning asymmetries

Stroop interference is a composite phenomenon: Evidence from distinct developmental trajectories of its components

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About