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

Caldas, Ariane Leão; Machado-Pinheiro, Walter; Souza, Lidiane; Ribeiro, Gabriel; David, Isabel A.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01407.x

Cited by 20 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 66 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Across two block designs (mixed task vs. unmixed task), we reconfirmed the expected Stroop profile for RT (MacLeod, ). In line with this, response accuracy was highest for the congruent condition and lowest for the incongruent condition (Caldas et al ., ; Mead et al ., ; Wright & Wanley, ). There were no main/interaction effects for RT or errors involving gender for conditions or for interference/facilitation (Block, ; Imbrosciano & Berlach, ; MacLeod, ; Most et al ., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, the word can cause difficulty recruiting the response apparatus to output the correct hue name, for example, because words have been associated with saying colours more than have hues (Cohen, McClelland, & Dunbar, 1990;Szucs & Soltesz, 2010). Stroop effects may even reflect both semantic and response conflict in combination (Caldas, Machado-Pinheiro, Souza, Motta-Ribeiro, & David, 2012;Carter et al, 2000). Regardless of which account one prefers, one important implication is that children might be more susceptible to incongruity and interference effects than are adults (MacLeod, 1991;Wright & Wanley, 2003), for example because of differences in how their reading level relates to word meaning, or differences in the extent and control of semantic processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood

Wright

2016

British J of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rich body of research concerns causes of Stroop effects plus applications of Stroop. However, several questions remain. We included assessment of errors with children and adults (N = 316), who sat either a task wherein each block employed only trials of one type (unmixed task) or where every block comprised of a mix of the congruent, neutral, and incongruent trials. Children responded slower than adults and made more errors on each task. Contrary to some previous studies, interference (the difference between neutral and incongruent condition) showed no reaction time (RT) differences by group or task, although there were differences in errors. By contrast, facilitation (the difference between neutral and congruent condition) was greater in children than adults, and greater on the unmixed task than the mixed task. After considering a number of theoretical accounts, we settle on the inadvertent word‐reading hypothesis, whereby facilitation stems from children and the unmixed task promoting inadvertent reading particularly in the congruent condition. Stability of interference RT is explained by fixed semantic differences between neutral and incongruent conditions, for children versus adults and for unmixed versus mixed task. We conclude that utilizing two tasks together may reveal more about how attention is affected in other groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood

Wright

2016

British J of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In EEG studies employing the Stroop task, the number of response options is typically greater than that in the Flanker task. Specifically, Stroop tasks used for EEG typically have had four response options (Appelbaum et al, 2014; Atkinson, Drysdale, & Fulham, 2003; Badzakova-Trajkov et al, 2009; Coderre et al, 2011; Hanslmayr et al, 2008; Huster et al, 2009; Liotti et al, 2000; Markela-Lerenc et al, 2004; Silton et al, 2010; Tillman & Wiens, 2011; West & Alain, 1999; 2000 but see Caldas, Machado-Pinheiro, Souza, Motta-Ribeiro, & David, 2012; Killikelly & Szűcs, 2013), whereas EEG studies of the Flanker task have tended to only use two response options (Appelbaum et al, 2011; Bartholow et al, 2005; Beste et al, 2008; Brydges et al, 2012; Danielmeier et al, 2009; Freitas, Banai, & Clark, 2009; Frühholz et al, 2011; Tillman & Wiens, 2011; Wendt, Heldmann, Münte, & Kluwe, 2007). Having a limited set of response-options, as in the Flanker task, could be the cause of an earlier onset of this conflict-related activity, which could explain the differential timing of the incongruency-related negativity that has observed in these two tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The neural dynamics of stimulus and response conflict processing as a function of response complexity and task demands

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both stimulus and response conflict can disrupt behavior by slowing response times and decreasing accuracy. Although several neural activations have been associated with conflict processing, it is unclear how specific any of these are to the type of stimulus conflict or the amount of response conflict. Here, we recorded electrical brain activity, while manipulating the type of stimulus conflict in the task (spatial [Flanker] versus semantic [Stroop]) and the amount of response conflict (two versus four response choices). Behaviorally, responses were slower to incongruent versus congruent stimuli across all task and response types, along with overall slowing for higher response-mapping complexity. The earliest incongruency-related neural effect was a short-duration frontally-distributed negativity at ~200 ms that was only present in the Flanker spatial-conflict task. At longer latencies, the classic fronto-central incongruency-related negativity ‘Ninc’ was observed for all conditions, which was larger and ~100 ms longer in duration with more response options. Further, the onset of the motor-related lateralized readiness potential (LRP) was earlier for the two vs. four response sets, indicating that smaller response sets enabled faster motor-response preparation. The late positive complex (LPC) was present in all conditions except the two-response Stroop task, suggesting this late conflict-related activity is not specifically related to task type or response-mapping complexity. Importantly, across tasks and conditions, the LRP onset at or before the conflict-related Ninc, indicating that motor preparation is a rapid, automatic process that interacts with the conflict-detection processes after it has begun. Together, these data highlight how different conflict-related processes operate in parallel and depend on both the cognitive demands of the task and the number of response options.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, in the field of cognitive neuroscience, the high temporal resolution of event-related potential (ERP) techniques offer a promising means to explore the neural activity of the overall consecutive stages of information processing from stimulus- to response-onset at the millisecond level (Fabiani et al, 2007; Caldas et al, 2012). The effects of emotion valence on word processing have been extensively examined in native language processing (e.g., Kissler et al, 2006, 2007, 2009; Herbert et al, 2008; Schacht and Sommer, 2009; Scott et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural Correlates of Task-Irrelevant First and Second Language Emotion Words – Evidence from the Emotional Face–Word Stroop Task

Fan

Wang

et al. 2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emotionally valenced words have thus far not been empirically examined in a bilingual population with the emotional face–word Stroop paradigm. Chinese-English bilinguals were asked to identify the facial expressions of emotion with their first (L1) or second (L2) language task-irrelevant emotion words superimposed on the face pictures. We attempted to examine how the emotional content of words modulated behavioral performance and cerebral functioning in the bilinguals’ two languages. The results indicated that there were significant congruency effects for both L1 and L2 emotion words, and that identifiable differences in the magnitude of the Stroop effect between the two languages were also observed, suggesting L1 is more capable of activating the emotional response to word stimuli. For event-related potentials data, an N350–550 effect was observed only in the L1 task with greater negativity for incongruent than congruent trials. The size of the N350–550 effect differed across languages, whereas no identifiable language distinction was observed in the effect of conflict slow potential (conflict SP). Finally, more pronounced negative amplitude at 230–330 ms was observed in L1 than in L2, but only for incongruent trials. This negativity, likened to an orthographic decoding N250, may reflect the extent of attention to emotion word processing at word-form level, while the N350–550 reflects a complicated set of processes in the conflict processing. Overall, the face–word congruency effect has reflected identifiable language distinction at 230–330 and 350-550 ms, which provides supporting evidence for the theoretical proposals assuming attenuated emotionality of L2 processing.

show abstract

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

Cited by 20 publications

References 66 publications

What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood

What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood

The neural dynamics of stimulus and response conflict processing as a function of response complexity and task demands

Neural Correlates of Task-Irrelevant First and Second Language Emotion Words – Evidence from the Emotional Face–Word Stroop Task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About