Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The implications of an ideomotor approach to action control were investigated. In Experiment 1, participants made manual responses to letter stimuli and they were presented with response-contingent color patches, i.e., colored action effects. This rendered stimuli of the same color as an action's effect effective primes of that action, suggesting that bilateral associations were created between actions and the effects they produced. Experiment 2 combined this set-up with a manual Stroop task, i.e., participants responded to congruent, neutral, or incongruent color-word compounds. Standard Stroop effects were observed in a control group without action effects and in a group with target-incompatible action effects, but the reaction time Stroop effect was eliminated if actions produced target-compatible color effects (e.g., blue word --> left key --> blue patch). Experiment 3 did not replicate this interaction between target-effect compatibility and color-word congruency with color words as action effects, which rules out semantically based accounts. Theoretical implications for both action-effect acquisition and the Stroop effect are discussed. It is suggested that learning action effects, the features of which overlap with the target, allows and motivates people to recode their actions in ways that make them more stimulus-compatible. This provides a processing shortcut for translating the relevant stimulus into the correct response and, thus, shields processing from the impact of competing word distractors.
The implications of an ideomotor approach to action control were investigated. In Experiment 1, participants made manual responses to letter stimuli and they were presented with response-contingent color patches, i.e., colored action effects. This rendered stimuli of the same color as an action's effect effective primes of that action, suggesting that bilateral associations were created between actions and the effects they produced. Experiment 2 combined this set-up with a manual Stroop task, i.e., participants responded to congruent, neutral, or incongruent color-word compounds. Standard Stroop effects were observed in a control group without action effects and in a group with target-incompatible action effects, but the reaction time Stroop effect was eliminated if actions produced target-compatible color effects (e.g., blue word --> left key --> blue patch). Experiment 3 did not replicate this interaction between target-effect compatibility and color-word congruency with color words as action effects, which rules out semantically based accounts. Theoretical implications for both action-effect acquisition and the Stroop effect are discussed. It is suggested that learning action effects, the features of which overlap with the target, allows and motivates people to recode their actions in ways that make them more stimulus-compatible. This provides a processing shortcut for translating the relevant stimulus into the correct response and, thus, shields processing from the impact of competing word distractors.
Despite instructions to ignore the irrelevant word in the Stroop task, it robustly influences the time it takes to identify the color, leading to performance decrements (interference) or enhancements (facilitation). The present review addresses two questions: (1) What levels of processing contribute to Stroop effects; and (2) Where does attentional selection occur? The methods that are used in the Stroop literature to measure the candidate varieties of interference and facilitation are critically evaluated and the processing levels that contribute to Stroop effects are discussed. It is concluded that the literature does not provide clear evidence for a distinction between conflicting and facilitating representations at phonological, semantic and response levels (together referred to as informational conflict), because the methods do not currently permit their isolated measurement. In contrast, it is argued that the evidence for task conflict as being distinct from informational conflict is strong and, thus, that there are at least two loci of attentional selection in the Stroop task. Evidence suggests that task conflict occurs earlier, has a different developmental trajectory and is independently controlled which supports the notion of a separate mechanism of attentional selection. The modifying effects of response modes and evidence for Stroop effects at the level of response execution are also discussed. It is argued that multiple studies claiming to have distinguished response and semantic conflict have not done so unambiguously and that models of Stroop task performance need to be modified to more effectively account for the loci of Stroop effects.
A New interference calculation method for the Stroop test was developed based upon a neuropsychological model of the suppression of word reading in favor of color naming. Polynomial regression equations show a significant relationship between word reading and the New interference score that closely fits the underlying prediction of the New model, while the Golden [Stroop Color and Word Test, Stoelting Co., IL, Wood Dale, 1978] model (Old) produces only a random relationship. Constructs of developmental maturation and lateralized brain damage are supported by the New but not the Old method. The New compared to the Old method also gives a significant reduction in scores in a small sample of demented patients. It would be advisable to use this New model in both cognitive and neuropsychological comparisons of different lesions or different stimulus and response demands. The New model will also help promote finer clinical inferences when an understanding relative to the patient's own baselines is necessary.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.