Literature DB >> 11424642

A confluence of contexts: asymmetric versus global failures of selective attention to stroop dimensions.

M Sabri1, R D Melara, D Algom.   

Abstract

In 6 experiments probing selective attention through Stroop classification, 4 factors of context were manipulated: (a) psychophysical context, the distinctiveness of values along the color and word dimensions; (b) set size context, the number of stimulus values tested; (c) production context, the mode used to respond; and (d) covariate context, the correlation between the dimensions. The psychophysical and production contexts mainly caused an asymmetry in selective attention failure between colors and words, whereas the set size and covariate contexts contributed primarily to the average or global magnitudes of attentional disruption across dimensions. The results suggest that (a) Stroop dimensions are perceptually separable, (b) J.R. Stroop's (1935) classic findings arose from his particular combination of contexts, and (c) stimulus uncertainty and dimensional imbalance are the primary sources of task and congruity effects in the Stroop paradigm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11424642     DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.27.3.515

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  14 in total

1.  The locus and nature of semantic congruity in symbolic comparison: evidence from the Stroop effect.

Authors:  Samuel Shaki; Daniel Algom
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-01

2.  The importance of irrelevant-dimension variability in the stroop flanker task.

Authors:  Sharon Morein-Zamir; Avishai Henik; Idit Spitzer-Davidson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-03

3.  The next trial will be conflicting! Effects of explicit congruency pre-cues on cognitive control.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; Alicia Smallwood
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-12-19

4.  Relative speed of processing determines color-word contingency learning.

Authors:  Noah D Forrin; Colin M MacLeod
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-10

5.  Momentary Induction of Inhibitory Control and Its Effects on Uncertainty.

Authors:  Omer Linkovski; Carolyn I Rodriguez; Michael G Wheaton; Avishai Henik; Gideon E Anholt
Journal:  J Cogn       Date:  2021-01-21

6.  The Stroop effect: it is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be.

Authors:  M Dishon-Berkovits; D Algom
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-12

7.  Can the Stroop effect serve as the gold standard of conflict monitoring and control? A conceptual critique.

Authors:  Daniel Algom; Daniel Fitousi; Eran Chajut
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-11-11

8.  Comparing perception of Stroop stimuli in focused versus divided attention paradigms: evidence for dramatic processing differences.

Authors:  Ami Eidels; James T Townsend; Daniel Algom
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2009-09-05

9.  Conflict-triggered top-down control: default mode, last resort, or no such thing?

Authors:  Julie M Bugg
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Discriminability effect on Garner interference: evidence from recognition of facial identity and expression.

Authors:  Yamin Wang; Xiaolan Fu; Robert A Johnston; Zheng Yan
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-12-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.