Literature DB >> 1194907

An auditory analog of the Stroop Test.

R E Shor.   

Abstract

With use of a tape-recorded auditory method of stimulus presentation, 112 undergraduates were required to identify the tonal concepts of high and low when these concepts were symbolically coded both in terms of high and low pitches of voice and by the spoken words "high" and "low." Trials consisted of 44-item sequential identifications of the concepts. Results were consistent with those in other realms. With use of a speeded accuracy criterion, findings were that Ss could identify the concepts faster from word symbols than from pitch symbols and faster from the two types of symbol information correctly matched than from either component type alone. More interference was produced when half of the symbols on a trial were mismatched and the other half matched than when all of the symbols were mismatched. Interference effects in both directions were found, but there was a larger interference of words on pitch than of pitch on words.

Mesh:

Year:  1975        PMID: 1194907

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Psychol        ISSN: 0022-1309


  15 in total

1.  Item-specific control of automatic processes: stroop process dissociations.

Authors:  Larry L Jacoby; D Stephen Lindsay; Sandra Hessels
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-09

2.  Integration of visual and tactile stimuli: top-down influences require time.

Authors:  David I Shore; Nevena Simic
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-08-06       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Activation of the caudal anterior cingulate cortex due to task-related interference in an auditory Stroop paradigm.

Authors:  Sven Haupt; Nikolai Axmacher; Michael X Cohen; Christian E Elger; Juergen Fell
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Analyzing distributional properties of interference effects across modalities: chances and challenges.

Authors:  Kerstin Dittrich; David Kellen; Christoph Stahl
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-03-14

5.  Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; Mark A McDaniel; Michael K Scullin; Todd S Braver
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  CNS effects of indomethacin: should patients be cautioned about decreased mental alertness and motor coordination?

Authors:  Judith Hegeman; Bart van den Bemt; Vivian Weerdesteyn; Bart Nienhuis; Jacques van Limbeek; Jacques Duysens
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  Is conflict monitoring supramodal? Spatiotemporal dynamics of cognitive control processes in an auditory Stroop task.

Authors:  Sarah E Donohue; Mario Liotti; Ricardo Perez; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.282

8.  Neural basis of the crossmodal correspondence between auditory pitch and visuospatial elevation.

Authors:  Kelly McCormick; Simon Lacey; Randall Stilla; Lynne C Nygaard; K Sathian
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; Larry L Jacoby; Jeffrey P Toth
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-12

10.  Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: role of stimulus difference.

Authors:  E Ben-Artzi; L E Marks
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1995-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.