Literature DB >> 20718567

The relationship between Stroop interference and facilitation effects: statistical artifacts, baselines, and a reassessment.

Tracy L Brown1.   

Abstract

The relationship between interference and facilitation effects in the Stroop task is poorly understood yet central to its implications. At question is the modal view that they arise from a single mechanism-the congruency of color and word. Two developments have challenged that view: (a) the belief that facilitation effects are fractionally small compared with interference effects, or nonexistent altogether; and (b) the finding that interference and facilitation effects are inversely correlated. Statistical simulations, reanalysis of past data, and two new experiments indicate that facilitation is robust and substantial when congruency is deconfounded from lexicality, and that the inverse correlations are mostly spurious. Instead, interference and facilitation are uncorrelated, or at most weakly but inversely related. Resolution of response conflict and lexical convergence can explain either finding. Modeling and interpretation of the Stroop task must distinguish between nonspecific lexicality-based effects and specific color-word congruency effects. (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20718567     DOI: 10.1037/a0019252

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


  24 in total

1.  Novel Symbol Learning-Induced Stroop Effect: Evidence for a Strategy-Based, Utility Learning Model.

Authors:  Jin Wang; Huijun Tang; Yuan Deng
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2016-10

2.  Mental chronometry and individual differences: modeling reliabilities and correlations of reaction time means and effect sizes.

Authors:  Jeff Miller; Rolf Ulrich
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-10

3.  Behavioral and electrophysiological investigation of semantic and response conflict in the Stroop task.

Authors:  Maria Augustinova; Laetitia Silvert; Ludovic Ferrand; Pierre Michel Llorca; Valentin Flaudias
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-04

4.  Neutral stimuli and pupillometric task conflict.

Authors:  Ronen Hershman; Yulia Levin; Joseph Tzelgov; Avishai Henik
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2020-03-13

5.  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

6.  The magic of words reconsidered: Investigating the automaticity of reading color-neutral words in the Stroop task.

Authors:  Sachiko Kinoshita; Bianca De Wit; Dennis Norris
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Direction of Auditory Pitch-Change Influences Visual Search for Slope From Graphs.

Authors:  Stacey Parrott; Emmanuel Guzman-Martinez; Laura Orte; Marcia Grabowecky; Mark D Huntington; Satoru Suzuki
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.490

8.  Cross-modal stimulus conflict: the behavioral effects of stimulus input timing in a visual-auditory Stroop task.

Authors:  Sarah E Donohue; Lawrence G Appelbaum; Christina J Park; Kenneth C Roberts; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Application of the ex-Gaussian function to the effect of the word blindness suggestion on Stroop task performance suggests no word blindness.

Authors:  Benjamin A Parris; Zoltan Dienes; Timothy L Hodgson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-09-20

10.  Modulation of brain activity during a Stroop inhibitory task by the kind of cognitive control required.

Authors:  Julien Grandjean; Kevin D'Ostilio; Christophe Phillips; Evelyne Balteau; Christian Degueldre; André Luxen; Pierre Maquet; Eric Salmon; Fabienne Collette
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.