Literature DB >> 2233259

Cuing efficiency in a Stroop-like task with visual half-field presentation.

M Eglin1, A Hunter.   

Abstract

Stroop-like stimuli were presented to either the left or the right visual half-field. Subjects responded to the identity of the words above and below (the target dimension), which appeared above or below a reference point (the cuing dimension). Automatic Stroop-like effects were assessed as the difference in reaction times between congruent trials (e.g., above the reference point) and incongruent trials (e.g., above below the reference point) when both trial types were equally frequent. In blocks in which most trials were of one type (e.g., 80% congruent trials), controlled Stroop-like effects could be assessed. Automatic Stroop-like effects remained unchanged under different task manipulations. In contrast, controlled Stroop-like effects were reduced by lowering cue-response compatibility and by increasing the response alternatives from two to four. Thus, similar to other cuing effects, controlled Stroop-like effects are susceptible to manipulations that affect the response-decision stage and appear to involve response-selection processes. The resources supporting these response-selection decisions were not hemisphere-specific, and were sufficiently nonspecific that interference from a memory-load task was found. When resources were scarce, a consistent bias to attend to stimuli presented or responded to on the right was evident.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2233259     DOI: 10.3758/bf03198479

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


  19 in total

1.  The effect of a subsidiary task on iconic memory.

Authors:  S L Chow; B B Murdock
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1975-11

2.  Laws of visual choice reaction time.

Authors:  W H Teichner; M J Krebs
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words.

Authors:  K Dunbar; C M MacLeod
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Must egocentric and environmental frames of reference be aligned to produce spatial S-R compatibility effects?

Authors:  E Ladavas; M Moscovitch
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Can response preparation begin before stimulus recognition finishes?

Authors:  J Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Compatibility due to the coding of the relative position of the effectors.

Authors:  R Nicoletti; C Umiltà; E Ladavas
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1984-10

7.  Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference.

Authors:  L McClain
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1983-03

8.  Hemispheres as independent resource systems: limited-capacity processing and cerebral specialization.

Authors:  A Friedman; M C Polson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1981-10       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Toward a translational model of Stroop interference.

Authors:  R A Virzi; H E Egeth
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1985-07

10.  Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: theory and data.

Authors:  G D Logan
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1980-10       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  1 in total

1.  Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words.

Authors:  J Tzelgov; A Henik; J Berger
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1992-11
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.