Cross-modal, auditory-visual Stroop interference: A reply to Cowan and Barron (1987)

Abstract

This series of experiments was performed to verify Cowan and Barron's (1987) reported effect of auditory color-word interference on a visual Stroop task. Extant theory predicts effects of irrelevant speech on visual memory tasks involving immediate, ordered recall of the items. Interference between the two sources of information (visual and auditory) is assumed to be located at the phonological store component of the articulatory loop. Perceptual tasks such as the Stroop task, which do not require use of the articulatory loop for rehearsal purposes, should not be similarly susceptible. The present data fail to replicate Cowan and Barron's findings, and are thus consistent with contemporary theory.In a recent study, Cowan and Barron (1987) examined the effects of auditory color-word interference on a visual Stroop task requiring a spoken response. Their results reflected the action of cross-modal interference, suggesting that subjects were unable to prevent the processing of irrelevant, spoken color items. The authors further interpreted their data in terms of a processing system in which multiple verbal items enter a prespeech buffer with a selection mechanism that examines the buffer items in parallel.The present paper further examines the possibility that subjects are unable to prevent the processing of irrelevant, spoken color items, but from an alternative theoretical stance, which is outlined below. Three experiments are reported, each providing evidence suggesting that irrelevant, spoken color items do not interfere with the visual Stroop task. Thus, the notion of cross-modal interference within this paradigm is rejected.Irrelevant or unattended speech impairs immediate, ordered recall of visually presented items, and the effect is exaggerated when the degree of phonological similarity between the auditory and the visual stimuli is high (Salame & Baddeley, 1982). This finding has been interpreted as reflecting the action of a phonological store (PS) and an articulatory control process (ACP), which together form the articulatory loop component of working memory (see Baddeley, 1986, for a review). Briefly, the proposed mechanisms act as follows: Material may be registered in the PS either directly, through auditory presentation, or indirectly, when the ACP is used to convert a visual item into the appropriate phonological code. When a sequence of items is presented visually for immediate serial Part of this research was funded by a United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council grant awarded to the first and third authors. Adrian Britten collected the data in Experiments la and lb. Address correspondence to Christopher Miles, School of Psychology, University of Wales College of Cardiff, P.O. Box 901, CardiffCFI 3YG, U.K. 77recall simultaneously with irrelevant auditory information, impairment occurs because the unattended (irrelevant) auditory items gain obligatory access to the PS. Because the PS is used to help retain the visually presented items, interference is observed between the two sets of phono...

The nature of cross-modal color-word interference effects

“…Although Miles, Madden, and Jones (1989) and were unable to replicate this cross-modal effect, it is replicated here in two experiments with much better experimental control than before. However, the effect is shown to depend upon the relative timing of the color and word in a way that conflicts with the theoretical account that Cowan and Barron offered.…”

“…However, a controversy has followed the initial report. Miles, Madden, and Jones (1989) failed to replicate the cross-modal effects reported by Cowan and Barron (1987), but Cowan (1989b) pointed out ways in which the method of the original study had not been reproduced This work was supported by NIH Grant RO I HD-21338 awarded to N.C. We thank John Flowers, Denny LeCompte, and an anonymous reviewer for suggestions. Address reprint requests to N. Cowan, Department of Psychology, 210 McAlester Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211 (e-mail: psycowan@showme.missouri.edu).…”

The reality of cross-modal Stroop effects

“…They also pointed out that this effect has important implications for theories of memory and attention. However, Miles, Madden, and Jones (1989) objected to this finding on the basis of several experiments of their own. Cowan (1989) laid these particular objections to rest by describing serious methodological shortcomings in the experiments conducted by Miles et al Responding to these criticisms, briefly described another experiment in which the method supposedly was very similar to that of Cowan and Barron (1987), but in which the cross-modal Stroop effect still was not replicated.…”

Developmental change in the cross-modal Stroop effect

“…Cowan and Barron argued that adults could not fully inhibit the processing of words in the auditory modality and, therefore, could not limit lexical processing to the visual modality. This claim, however, became controversial, since and Miles, Madden, and Jones (1989) failed to replicate Cowan and Barron. Cowan (1989), E. M. Elliott et al (1998), and E. M. Elliott and Cowan (2001) claimed that the failed replications were due to methodological errors and again demonstrated the cross-modal Stroop effect.…”