Literature DB >> 12035891

Working memory and stroop interference: an individual differences investigation.

Debra L Long1, Chantel S Prat.   

Abstract

We investigated the claim that individual differences in working-memory capacity reflect limitations on the ability to inhibit task-irrelevant information and/or to maintain activation in the face of distracting or interfering events. Specifically, we investigated whether high- and low-capacity individuals differed in their susceptibility to interference on the Stroop task and whether high-capacity individuals employed a strategy for minimizing Stroop interference. In Experiment 1, we found that high-capacity participants showed substantial interference when conflict trials were infrequent, but almost no interference when conflict trials were frequent. In contrast, low-capacity participants showed substantial interference irrespective of the proportion of conflict trials. In Experiment 2, we found that high-capacity participants experienced substantial negative priming, slow responses when the to-be-named color was the irrelevant word on the previous trial. We discuss these results and their implications for high-capacity individuals' ability to reduce Stroop interference in light of both inhibitory and noninhibitory accounts of negative priming.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12035891     DOI: 10.3758/bf03195290

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  29 in total

1.  Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: a test of four hypotheses.

Authors:  R W Engle; J Cantor; J J Carullo
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity.

Authors:  M C MacDonald; M A Just; P A Carpenter
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Further evidence for cognitive inertia of persons with mental retardation.

Authors:  N R Ellis; C L Dulaney
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  1991-05

Review 4.  Determinants of negative priming.

Authors:  C P May; M J Kane; L Hasher
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  The stroop effect and the myth of automaticity.

Authors:  D Besner; J A Stolz; C Boutilier
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1997-06

Review 6.  The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition.

Authors:  T A Salthouse
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Selective attention: a reevaluation of the implications of negative priming.

Authors:  B Milliken; S Joordens; P M Merikle; A E Seiffert
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 8.  Long-term working memory.

Authors:  K A Ericsson; W Kintsch
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  Selective attention and priming: inhibitory and facilitatory effects of ignored primes.

Authors:  S P Tipper; M Cranston
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1985-11

10.  Examination of some aspects of the Stroop Color-Word Test.

Authors:  E C Dalrymple-Alford; B Budayer
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  1966-12
View more
  38 in total

1.  Single letter coloring and spatial cuing eliminates a semantic contribution to the Stroop effect.

Authors:  Laurie A Manwell; Martha Anne Roberts; Derek Besner
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-06

2.  Drifting from slow to "D'oh!": working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors.

Authors:  Jennifer C McVay; Michael J Kane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  The effects of age and task context on Stroop task performance.

Authors:  Sharon A Mutter; Jennifer C Naylor; Emily R Patterson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-04

4.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and visual search: the roles of top-down and bottom-up processing.

Authors:  Kenith V Sobel; Matthew P Gerrie; Bradley J Poole; Michael J Kane
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-10

5.  Executive attention and task switching in category learning: evidence for stimulus-dependent representation.

Authors:  Michael A Erickson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-06

Review 6.  CNTRICS final task selection: working memory.

Authors:  Deanna M Barch; Marc G Berman; Randy Engle; Jessica Hurdelbrink Jones; John Jonides; Angus Macdonald; Derek Evan Nee; Thomas S Redick; Scott R Sponheim
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2008-11-05       Impact factor: 9.306

7.  Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension.

Authors:  Julie A Van Dyke; Clinton L Johns; Anuenue Kukona
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2014-03-19

8.  The Role of Visual Stimuli in Cross-Modal Stroop Interference.

Authors:  Danielle A Lutfi-Proctor; Emily M Elliott; Nelson Cowan
Journal:  Psych J       Date:  2014-03-01

9.  Inability to suppress salient distractors predicts low visual working memory capacity.

Authors:  John M Gaspar; Gregory J Christie; David J Prime; Pierre Jolicœur; John J McDonald
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Both self-report and interview-based measures of psychopathy predict attention abnormalities in criminal offenders.

Authors:  Joshua D Zeier; Joseph P Newman
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2011-07-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.