Variations of Center-Surround Inhibition Effects Following Attention at Selection

Dagenbach, Dale; McCartney, Holly; Schirillo, James A.

doi:10.1037/e501882009-266

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As well, formal models of the Stroop effect typically rely on inhibitory connections (e.g., Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001;Zhang, Zhang, & Kornblum, 1999). As a slight variant, some accounts suggest that a top-down inhibitory mechanism dampens activation of concepts that are closely related to the target (e.g., Dagenbach & Carr, 1994). Although atypical, not only is a solution based on facilitation more efficient computationally (only related concepts need to be connected, whereas in an inhibition-based model, every single semantic concept needs to be connected to every other semantic concept, which would require approximately 200 million connections in a vocabulary of 20,000 words), but it also seems more reasonable (and biologically plausible) to assume that related concepts should be connected in a facilitative manner and that unrelated concepts should not be connected at all.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

You can’t Stroop a lexical decision: Is semantic processing fundamentally facilitative?

Schmidt¹,

Cheesman²,

Besner³

2013

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well documented that related prime words facilitate target processing in lexical decision (e.g., doctor facilitates nurse), but interfere with target processing in the Stroop task (e.g., the word blue slows the time to name the colour red). Five experiments explored several potential explanations for these differences. In Experiments 1 and 2, all stimuli were novel (as in a typical lexical decision design). Participants were faster both to make lexical decisions and to read colour words aloud that were primed by incongruent associates (e.g., banana) relative to a neutral prime (e.g., knot). Experiments 3 and 4 used a small set of repeatedly presented stimuli (as in a typical Stroop design). Incongruent colour words facilitated lexical decisions to target colour words, but interfered with identification (reading aloud). Experiment 5 further showed that interference is still observed in identification when the distractor set size is large but the target/response set size is small. These findings suggest that semantic connections are solely facilitative and that response competition only occurs when there is a small set of repeated responses and identification (rather than lexical decision) is required. The more general problem of research fragmentation is briefly discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%