Effect of conflicting cues on information processing: The ‘Stroop effect’ vs. the ‘Simon effect’

Simon, Jessica; Berbaum, Kevin S.

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(90)90077-s

Cited by 191 publications

(166 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

155

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Switching task instructions from a compatible to an incompatible stimulusresponse mapping results in a reversal of the classic Simon effect, 5 as first reported by Hedge and Marsh (1975). Several explanations of this phenomenon have been proposed (Hasbroucq & Guiard, 1991;Proctor & Pick, 2003;Simon & Berbaum, 1990). The most relevant to our argument is the stimulus-stimulus congruency hypothesis.…”

Section: Sr-incompatible Mappingsupporting

confidence: 63%

Parallel and distributed neural models of the ideomotor principle: An investigation of imitative cortical pathways

Sauser

Billard

2006

Neural Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans' capacity to imitate has been extensively investigated through a wide-range of behavioral and developmental studies. Yet, despite the huge amount of phenomenological evidence gathered, we are still unable to relate this behavioral data to any specific neural substrate. In this paper, we investigate how principles from psychology can be the result of neural computations and therefore attempt to bridge the gap between monkey neurophysiology and human behavioral data, and hence between these two complementary disciplines.Specifically, we address the principle of ideomotor compatibility, by which 'observing the movements of others influences the quality of one's own performance' and develop two neural models which account for a set of related behavioral studies [Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition 44,[124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143]. We show that the ideomotor effect could be the result of two distinct cognitive pathways, which can be modeled by means of biologically plausible neural architectures. Furthermore, we propose a novel behavioral experiment to confirm or refute either of the two model pathways. q

show abstract

Section: Sr-incompatible Mappingsupporting

confidence: 63%

Parallel and distributed neural models of the ideomotor principle: An investigation of imitative cortical pathways

Sauser

Billard

2006

Neural Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The other irrelevant stimulus dimension, the color words, may be consistent (e.g., the word ''RED'' written in red) or inconsistent (e.g., the word ''RED'' written in green) with the relevant stimuli, the colors of the inks. The SR-consistent conditions are faster and more accurate than the SR-inconsistent conditions (Kornblum, 1994;Simon & Berbaum, 1990;Stoffels & van der Molen, 1988). Similarly, SS-consistent conditions are faster and more accurate than SS-inconsistent conditions (Kornblum, 1994;Simon & Berbaum, 1990;Stoffels & van der Molen, 1988).…”

Section: Illustrative Examples and Major Findingsmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The SR-consistent conditions are faster and more accurate than the SR-inconsistent conditions (Kornblum, 1994;Simon & Berbaum, 1990;Stoffels & van der Molen, 1988). Similarly, SS-consistent conditions are faster and more accurate than SS-inconsistent conditions (Kornblum, 1994;Simon & Berbaum, 1990;Stoffels & van der Molen, 1988). In other words, the SR-and SS-consistent condition is always the fastest, SR-and SS-inconsistent condition is the slowest, and SR-consistent/SS-inconsistent and SR-inconsistent/SS-consistent conditions are in between.…”

Section: Illustrative Examples and Major Findingsmentioning

confidence: 90%

A Parallel Distributed Processing Model of Stimulus–Stimulus and Stimulus–Response Compatibility

Zhang

Kornblum

1999

Cognitive Psychology

171

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A parallel distributed processing (PDP) model is proposed to account for choice reaction time (RT) performance in diverse cognitive and perceptual tasks such as the Stroop task, the Simon task, the Eriksen flanker task, and the stimulus-response compatibility task that are interrelated in terms of stimulus-stimulus and stimulusresponse overlap (Kornblum, 1992). In multilayered (input-intermediate-output) networks, neuron-like nodes that represent stimulus and response features are grouped into mutually inhibitory modules that represent stimulus and response dimensions. The stimulus-stimulus overlap is implemented by a convergence of two input modules onto a common intermediate module, and the stimulus-response overlap by direct pathways representing automatic priming of outputs. Mean RTs are simulated in various simple tasks and, furthermore, predictions are generated for complex tasks based on performance in simpler tasks. The match between simulated and experimental results lends strong support for our PDP model of compatibility.

show abstract

“…First, the observed interference from an incongruent distractor in a second modality may have arisen from listeners' confusion or response interference, rather than from the integration of audiovisual information at the perceptual level. When the target feature to be judged (e.g., whether a sound is moving to the right or left) shares the spatiotemporal properties with visual distractors, such stimulus-response compatibility can cause participants to inadvertently respond to the distractors (Gallace & Spence, 2006;Sanabria, Spence, & SotoFaraco, 2007b;Simon & Berbaum, 1990). In addition to response interference, it is also possible that performance may be affected either by a listener's conscious use of strategies (e.g., selectively attending to a particular spatial region) or by subconscious shifts in their response criterion, referred to as response bias (Alais & Burr, 2004a;Bertelson, 1998;Meyer & Wuerger, 2001;Sanabria et al, 2007a, b;Soto-Faraco, Kingstone & Spence, 2003;Talsma, Senkowski, Soto-Faraco & Woldorff, 2010;Welch & Warren, 1980).…”

Section: Perceptual and Decision-related Contributions To Audiovisualmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensional processing of dynamic sounds: more than meets the ear

Liu

Mercado

Church

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strong cross-modal interactions exist between visual and auditory processing. The relative contributions of perceptual versus decision-related processes to such interactions are only beginning to be understood. We used methodological and statistical approaches to control for potential decision-related contributions such as response interference, decisional criterion shift, and strategy selection. Participants were presented with rising-, falling-, and constant-amplitude sounds and were asked to detect change (increase or decrease) in sound amplitude while ignoring an irrelevant visual cue of a disk that grew, shrank, or stayed constant in size. Across two experiments, testing context was manipulated by varying the grouping of visual cues during testing, and cross-modal congruency showed independent perceptual and decision-related effects. Whereas a change in testing context greatly affected criterion shifts, cross-modal effects on perceptual sensitivity remained relatively consistent. In general, participants were more sensitive to increases in sound amplitude and less sensitive to sounds paired with dynamic visual cues. As compared with incongruent visual cues, congruent cues enhanced detection of amplitude decreases, but not increases. These findings suggest that the relative contributions of perceptual and decisional processing and the impacts of these processes on cross-modal interactions can vary significantly depending on asymmetries in within-modal processing, as well as consistencies in cross-modal dynamics.

show abstract

Effect of conflicting cues on information processing: The ‘Stroop effect’ vs. the ‘Simon effect’

Cited by 191 publications

References 44 publications

Parallel and distributed neural models of the ideomotor principle: An investigation of imitative cortical pathways

Parallel and distributed neural models of the ideomotor principle: An investigation of imitative cortical pathways

A Parallel Distributed Processing Model of Stimulus–Stimulus and Stimulus–Response Compatibility

Multidimensional processing of dynamic sounds: more than meets the ear

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About