Literature DB >> 15111228

The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task.

Frederick Verbruggen1, Baptist Liefooghe, André Vandierendonck.   

Abstract

In the present study, two experiments were conducted to investigate the interaction between the behavioral inhibition, measured by the stop signal task, and distractor interference, measured by the flanker task and the Stroop task. In the first experiment, the stop signal task was combined with a flanker task. Analysis revealed that participants responded faster when the distractors were congruent to the target. Also, the data suggest that it is more difficult to suppress a reaction when the distractors were incongruent. Whether the incongruent distractor was part of the response set (i.e. the distractor could also be a target) or not, had no influence on stopping reactions. In the second experiment, the stop signal task was combined with a manual version of the Stroop task and the degree of compatibility was varied. Even though in the second experiment of the present study interference control is differently operationalized, similar results as in the first experiment were found, indicating that inhibition of motor responses is influenced by the presentation of distracting information that is not part of the response set.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15111228     DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)        ISSN: 0001-6918


  48 in total

1.  Stress and alcohol cues exert conjoint effects on go and stop signal responding in male problem drinkers.

Authors:  Martin Zack; Tracy M Woodford; Anne M Tremblay; Lindsay Steinberg; Laurie A Zawertailo; Usoa E Busto
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 7.853

2.  Functional parcellation of the inferior frontal and midcingulate cortices in a flanker-stop-change paradigm.

Authors:  Stefanie Enriquez-Geppert; Tom Eichele; Karsten Specht; Harald Kugel; Christo Pantev; René J Huster
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 3.  The role of supplementary eye field in goal-directed behavior.

Authors:  Veit Stuphorn
Journal:  J Physiol Paris       Date:  2015-02-23

4.  On the difference between response inhibition and negative priming: evidence from simple and selective stopping.

Authors:  Frederick Verbruggen; Baptist Liefooghe; André Vandierendonck
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2004-06-26

5.  Influence of history on saccade countermanding performance in humans and macaque monkeys.

Authors:  Erik E Emeric; Joshua W Brown; Leanne Boucher; Roger H S Carpenter; Doug P Hanes; Robin Harris; Gordon D Logan; Reena N Mashru; Martin Paré; Pierre Pouget; Veit Stuphorn; Tracy L Taylor; Jeffrey D Schall
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Selective and nonselective inhibition of competitors in picture naming.

Authors:  Zeshu Shao; Antje S Meyer; Ardi Roelofs
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-11

7.  Supplementary motor area exerts proactive and reactive control of arm movements.

Authors:  Xiaomo Chen; Katherine Wilson Scangos; Veit Stuphorn
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Automatic and controlled response inhibition: associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms.

Authors:  Frederick Verbruggen; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2008-11

9.  Event-Related Potential Study of Executive Dysfunctions in a Speeded Reaction Task in Cocaine Addiction.

Authors:  Estate Sokhadze; Christopher Stewart; Michael Hollifield; Allan Tasman
Journal:  J Neurother       Date:  2008-12-01

Review 10.  Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms.

Authors:  Frederick Verbruggen; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2008-09-04       Impact factor: 8.989

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.