Depth cues do not underlie attentional modulations of the Stroop effect

Wühr, Peter; Weltle, Martina

doi:10.3758/bf03195334

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of some recent studies by Wühr and colleagues (Wühr & Waszak, 2003;Wühr & Weltle, 2005) challenge the traditional automaticity account of the Stroop effect. In these studies, researchers presented participants with two overlapping rectangles-one oriented horizontally, the other oriented vertically.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

A Stroop Effect for Spatial Orientation

Wühr¹

2007

The Journal of General Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The author investigated the conditions under which a congruent or incongruent orientation word affects processing of the orientation of visual objects. Participants named the orientation of a rectangle that partially occluded another rectangle. Congruent or incongruent orientation words appeared in the relevant object, in the irrelevant object, or in the background. There were two main results. First, congruent orientation words produced faster orientation-naming responses than incongruent orientation words. This finding constituted a new Stroop effect for spatial orientation. Second, only words in the relevant (i.e., attended) object produced Stroop effects, whereas words outside the relevant object had no significant effects. This object-dependent modulation of Stroop effects resembled previous findings with color-naming tasks, and hence indicated that these modulations are not restricted to a particular type of task. In summary, results suggested that object-based attention plays an important role in processing of irrelevant words.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 94%

A Stroop Effect for Spatial Orientation

Wühr¹

2007

The Journal of General Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using displays with crossed rectangles, Wühr and colleagues consistently found that words that were in the relevant object produced larger Stroop effects than did words that were in the irrelevant object or words that were in the background, whereas Stroop effects did not differ in the two latter conditions (Wühr, 2007;Wühr & Waszak, 2003;Wühr & Weltle, 2005). These results suggest that object-based attention amplifies the processing of the relevant object but does not inhibit the processing of the irrelevant object.…”

Section: Apparatus and Stimulimentioning

confidence: 72%

Inhibition is picky: Shape difference is a necessary condition for attentional inhibition of irrelevant objects

Wühr

Frings

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In particular, whereas in the eye‐gaze condition, the target word always overlapped the face picture of the distracter eye‐gaze; in the arrow condition, a spatial separation between the target word and the distracter was present (e.g., the word was always presented above the arrow cue). The importance of spatial separation between target and distracter in modulating interference effects is clear from the Stroop literature (Gatti & Egeth, ; Wühr & Waszak, ; Wühr & Weltle, ). In fact, several studies have found that Stroop effects are larger for the target overlapping the distracter than for target spatially separated from the distracter (Wühr & Waszak, ; Wühr & Weltle, ) and that Stroop interference decrease when the distance between target and distracter is increased (Gatti & Egeth, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…spatial separation between target and distracter in modulating interference effects is clear from the Stroop literature (Gatti & Egeth, 1978;Wühr & Waszak, 2003;Wühr & Weltle, 2005). In fact, several studies have found that Stroop effects are larger for the target overlapping the distracter than for target spatially separated from the distracter (Wühr & Waszak, 2003;Wühr & Weltle, 2005) and that Stroop interference decrease when the distance between target and distracter is increased (Gatti & Egeth, 1978). Therefore, it could be argued that in the study of Barnes et al (2007), the different spatial separation between target and distracter used in eye-gaze and arrow condition (non-overlapped vs. overlapped, respectively) made difficult to disambiguate the effects of the spatial separation from the effects of the social component of the distracter stimulus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developmental differences in cognitive control of social information

Marotta

Casagrande

2016

Infant and Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated developmental differences in the ability to exert cognitive control in the context of distracting spatial cues varying in social significance. Adults and children (6–13 years) were asked to classify target words (LEFT/RIGHT) that were accompanied by a distracter arrow or averted gaze pointing in a direction that was congruent, incongruent, or neutral (bar without arrowheads, central gaze) relative to the target word. Results showed that interference from averted eye‐gaze differed between adults and children indicating that cognitive control of social information improves with age. These age differences did not generalize to the interference effect from arrows. On the basis of these findings, it was concluded that adults are better at inhibiting and/or to ignore another person's distracting gaze than are children. Highlights We examined the developmental differences in the ability to exert cognitive control on social and non‐social directional information Evidence of age‐related differences in the inhibitory control of attention was only observed with social eye‐gaze distracters Inhibitory mechanisms of social attention continue to improve along development

show abstract

Depth cues do not underlie attentional modulations of the Stroop effect

Cited by 7 publications

References 12 publications

A Stroop Effect for Spatial Orientation

A Stroop Effect for Spatial Orientation

Inhibition is picky: Shape difference is a necessary condition for attentional inhibition of irrelevant objects

Developmental differences in cognitive control of social information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About