Stroop matching task: role of feature selection and temporal modulation

David, Isabel A.; Volchan, Eliane; Vila, Jaime; Keil, Andreas; Oliveira, Letícia; Faria-Júnior, Aydamari J. P.; Perakakis, Pandelis; Mocaiber, Izabela; Pereira, Mirtes Garcia; Machado-Pinheiro, Walter

doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2507-9

Cited by 15 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An event-related potential study found that feature selection plays an important role in the Stroop matching task. This attentional feature selection, reflected by the N1 component amplitude, was influenced by Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) manipulation and markedly correlated with the behavioral results (for details, see David et al, 2011). Therefore, the Stroop matching task constitutes a useful tool for exploring the effects of alcohol on feature selection under conflict.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Dynamics of a Stroop matching task: Effect of alcohol and reversal with training.

David¹,

Volchan²,

Alfradique³

et al. 2011

Psychology & Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a Stroop matching task, we evaluated how alcohol affects the time needed to overcome Stroop conflict and whether practice might reverse the effect of alcohol. Participants (n = 16) performed two sessions in which they had to compare the color of a color-word with the meaning of a color-word in neutral color. The two task stimuli were presented simultaneously or with a Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) of 200, 500, or 800 ms. For half of the subjects, alcohol was administered in the first session, and for the other half, alcohol was administered in the second session. The results showed that the Stroop effect was significant at the 0 and 200 ms intervals in the sober subjects. Moreover, in untrained intoxicated individuals, interference endured until the 500 ms interval, a result that was abolished in trained intoxicated subjects. In conclusion, alcohol increased the time needed for Stroop matching task conflict resolution. However, this deleterious effect was minimized by a previous practice session.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Dynamics of a Stroop matching task: Effect of alcohol and reversal with training.

David¹,

Volchan²,

Alfradique³

et al. 2011

Psychology & Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the slightly enhanced stimulus interference in the Flanker task of Experiment 2 (adopting the same design with Experiment 1) also conflicts with the proportion interpretation. In addition, one previous study finds that a facilitation from the distractor enhances the early processing of the target stimulus [37]. However, if the participants tend to make a response based on word reading, larger response interference will be observed in Experiment 1 because word reading facilitates color naming in the SI trials but interferes with that in the RI trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Training Reveals the Sources of Stroop and Flanker Interference Effects

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the field of cognitive control, dimensional overlap and pathway automaticity are generally believed to be critical for the generation of congruency effects. However, their specific roles in the generation of congruency effects are unclear. In two experiments, with the 4∶2 mapping design, we investigated this issue by examining the training-related effects on congruency effects (the Stroop interference effect and the Flanker interference effect in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) normally expressed as incongruent minus congruent difference and on their subcomponents (the stimulus interference and response interference). Experiment 1 revealed that the stimulus interference in the Stroop task, wherein the task-relevant (printed color of word) and the task-irrelevant (semantics of word) dimensions of the stimuli were processed in different pathways, was present during early training but was virtually eliminated at the late stage of training. This indicates that the two dimensions overlap at the early stage but separate at the late stage. In contrast, Experiment 2 showed that the response interference in a variant of the Flanker task, wherein the task-relevant (central color word printed in black font) and the task-irrelevant (flanking color words printed in black font) dimensions of the stimuli were processed in the same pathway, was enhanced after training. This indicates that the enhanced automaticity of irrelevant-dimension processing induces stronger response competition, which therefore results in the larger response interference. Taken together, the present study demonstrates that (1) dimensional overlap is necessary for the generation of congruency effects, (2) pathway automaticity can affect the size of congruency effects, and (3) training enhances the degree of automatic processing in a given pathway.

show abstract

“…In addition, we did not discard the possibility that nonresponse conflicts, other than semantic conflict, are involved. In a recent Stroop matching task ERP study, an early facilitation was demonstrated during the “same” responses for the congruent/related condition compared to the incongruent/unrelated condition, which was reflected by the N1 amplitude (David et al., ). It was suggested that when relevant and irrelevant attributes are in the same feature domain (e.g., both are colors in the case of a word–color matching), distracter‐color processing could induce irrelevant matching and a conflict in other stages of processing (David et al., ; Goldfarb & Henik, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In a recent Stroop matching task ERP study, an early facilitation was demonstrated during the “same” responses for the congruent/related condition compared to the incongruent/unrelated condition, which was reflected by the N1 amplitude (David et al., ). It was suggested that when relevant and irrelevant attributes are in the same feature domain (e.g., both are colors in the case of a word–color matching), distracter‐color processing could induce irrelevant matching and a conflict in other stages of processing (David et al., ; Goldfarb & Henik, ). During the conditions in which the target‐color (bar color surface) and the distracter‐color (word color surface) are related, the comparison is facilitated by the fact that the distracter‐color and the target‐color are the same.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Stroop matching task presents conflict at both the response and nonresponse levels: An event‐related potential and electromyography study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Stroop matching task, a Stroop word is compared to a colored bar. The origin of the conflict presented by this task is a topic of current debate. In an effort to disentangle nonresponse and response conflicts, we recorded electromyography (EMG) and event-related potentials (ERPs) while participants performed the task. The N450 component was sensitive to the relationship of color surfaces, regardless of the response, suggesting the participation of nonresponse conflict. Incompatible arrays (e.g., incongruent Stroop stimuli during "same" responses) presented a substantial amount of double EMG activation and slower EMG latencies, suggesting the participation of response conflict. We propose that both response and nonresponse conflicts are sources of these effects. The combined use of the EMG and ERP techniques played an important role in elucidating the conflicts immersed in the Stroop matching task.

show abstract

Stroop matching task: role of feature selection and temporal modulation

Cited by 15 publications

References 51 publications

Dynamics of a Stroop matching task: Effect of alcohol and reversal with training.

Dynamics of a Stroop matching task: Effect of alcohol and reversal with training.

Training Reveals the Sources of Stroop and Flanker Interference Effects

The Stroop matching task presents conflict at both the response and nonresponse levels: An event‐related potential and electromyography study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About