| Literature DB >> 23316179 |
Marie Arsalidou1, Alba Agostino, Sarah Maxwell, Margot J Taylor.
Abstract
The color-word Stroop is a popular measure in psychological assessments. Evidence suggests that Stroop performance relies heavily on reading, an ability that improves over childhood. One way to influence reading proficiency is by orthographic manipulations. To determine the degree of interference posed by orthographic manipulations with development, in addition to standard color-Words (purple) we manipulated letter-positions: First/last letter in correct place (prulpe) and Scrambled (ulrpep). We tested children 7-16 years (n = 128) and adults (n = 23). Analyses showed that Word- and First/last-incongruent were qualitatively similar, whereas Word-congruent was different than other conditions. Results suggest that for children and adults, performance was hindered the most for incongruent and incorrectly spelled words and was most facilitated when words were congruent with the ink color and correctly spelled. Implications on visual word recognition and reading are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: children; color-word Stroop; facilitation; interference; orthographic manipulation
Year: 2013 PMID: 23316179 PMCID: PMC3539116 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00594
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Participant characteristics and performance.
| Grade 2 | Grade 4 | Grade 6 | Grade 8 | Grade 10 | Adults | Full total | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 (15) | 26 (17) | 26 (12) | 24 (17) | 33 (22) | 23 (14) | 151 (97) | |||||||||
| Age range | 7.4–8.3 | 9.4–10.3 | 11.4–12.3 | 13.3–14.3 | 14.9–16.2 | 20.21–29.3 | 7.4–29.3 | ||||||||
| Age ( | 7.86 ± 0.25 | 9.76 ± 0.29 | 11.79 ± 0.25 | 13.7 ± 0.32 | 15.5 ± 0.31 | 23.30 ± 2.6 | 13.87 ± 4.83 | ||||||||
| Condition | SD | SD | SD | SD | SD | SD | SD | ||||||||
| Color-baseline | RT | 905 | 93 | 885 | 83 | 804 | 87 | 776 | 111 | 676 | 85 | 692 | 64 | 775 | 119 |
| Err | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.08 | |
| Word-congruent | RT | 901 | 109 | 831 | 75 | 764 | 93 | 736 | 118 | 639 | 88 | 649 | 65 | 743 | 129 |
| Err | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.11 | |
| Word-incongruent | RT | 962 | 106 | 912 | 73 | 886 | 92 | 863 | 111 | 742 | 87 | 736 | 77 | 842 | 123 |
| Err | 0.33 | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.1 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.14 | 0.15 | |
| First/last-congruent | RT | 923 | 99 | 884 | 92 | 839 | 87 | 803 | 117 | 683 | 113 | 692 | 84 | 796 | 134 |
| Err | 0.22 | 0.2 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.12 | |
| First/last-incongruent | RT | 964 | 61 | 903 | 95 | 860 | 83 | 831 | 101 | 740 | 105 | 730 | 74 | 830 | 118 |
| Err | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.14 | |
| Scrambled-congruent | RT | 953 | 99 | 876 | 74 | 856 | 102 | 789 | 120 | 683 | 106 | 684 | 70 | 797 | 137 |
| Err | 0.3 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.3 | 0.09 | 0.13 | |
| Scrambled-incongruent | RT | 910 | 103 | 898 | 85 | 823 | 106 | 780 | 124 | 693 | 109 | 709 | 74 | 795 | 131 |
| Err | 0.34 | 0.23 | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.14 | |
| Word difference* | RT | 57 | 116 | 59 | 117 | 82 | 68 | 87 | 90 | 66 | 66 | 45 | 73 | 67 | 88 |
| First/last difference | RT | 60 | 91 | 50 | 85 | 56 | 80 | 55 | 77 | 63 | 80 | 40 | 54 | 54 | 77 |
| Scrambled difference | RT | 6 | 135 | 45 | 59 | 19 | 93 | 4 | 71 | 16 | 100 | 21 | 68 | 19 | 89 |
| Word facilitation | RT | −4 | 94 | −21 | 63 | −40 | 70 | −40 | 69 | −37 | 58 | −43 | 52 | −32 | 67 |
RT, response times in milliseconds; Err, proportion of errors. Difference scores were calculated by subtracting color-baseline from the incongruent scores. *Word difference, corresponds to what is typically referred to as interference score. Word facilitation was calculated by subtracting color-baseline from Word-congruent. A MANOVA was used to assess differences in error rates among the six age groups. This analysis yielded a significant main effect for age group [Wilk’s .
Figure 1Examples of incongruent stimuli for the three word-types. (A) Incongruent colour words, (B) Incongruent scrambled colour words with the first and last letter in place and (C) Incongruent scrambled colour words.
Figure 2Response times as a function of age and word-type.
Significant .
| Color-baseline | First/last-congruent | Word-incongruent | First/last-incongruent | Scrambled-incongruent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Word-congruent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Scrambled-congruent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Grades | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | A | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | A | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | A | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | A | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | A |
| 4 | * | – | . | – | . | – | . | – | . | – | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | * | . | – | . | . | – | . | . | – | * | . | – | . | . | – | |||||||||||||||
| 8 | * | * | * | – | * | * | . | – | * | . | . | – | * | * | . | – | * | * | . | – | ||||||||||
| 10 | * | * | * | . | – | * | * | * | * | – | * | * | * | * | – | * | * | * | * | – | * | * | * | * | – | |||||
| A | * | * | * | . | . | – | * | * | * | * | . | – | * | * | * | * | . | – | * | * | * | * | . | – | * | * | * | . | . | – |
*Significant at .
Correlations among scores and age.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | −0.24** | −0.32** | −0.24** | −0.32** | −0.30** | −0.20* | |
| 2. Color-baseline | 0.78** | 0.60** | 0.71** | 0.68** | 0.75** | 0.64** | ||
| −0.56** | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 3. Word-congruent | 0.60** | 0.71** | 0.64** | 0.76** | 0.65** | |||
| −0.59** | 0.86** | – | 0.32** | 0.38** | 0.29** | 0.45** | 0.35** | |
| 4. Word-incongruent | 0.64** | 0.70** | 0.68** | 0.65** | ||||
| −0.59** | 0.73** | 0.74** | – | 0.42** | 0.56** | 0.50** | 0.47** | |
| 5. First/last-congruent | 0.70** | 0.77** | 0.67** | |||||
| −0.57** | 0.81** | 0.81** | 0.76** | – | 0.45** | 0.54** | 0.42** | |
| 6. First/last-incongruent | 0.71** | 0.73** | ||||||
| −0.60** | 0.79** | 0.77** | 0.81** | 0.80** | – | 0.47** | 0.55** | |
| 7. Scrambled-congruent | 0.72** | |||||||
| −0.61** | 0.84** | 0.84** | 0.80** | 0.85** | 0.82** | – | 0.50** | |
| 8. Scrambled-incongruent | ||||||||
| −0.53** | 0.75** | 0.76** | 0.76** | 0.77** | 0.82** | 0.81** | – |
Correlations above the diagonal controlling for age (top value) and color-baseline (bottom value), zero-order correlations below the diagonal. .
Figure 3Path models depicting latent factors predicted by age. Note (A) Depicts Word-incongruent and First/last-incongruent loading onto a latent Incongruent factor, whereas the rest conditions load significantly onto a latent congruent factor. (B) Depicts a path with a better fit showing the Word-congruent significantly loading on its own; rest were same as Model A.