Literature DB >> 23339376

Distractor exclusion is not an early process: a reply to Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2011).

Elisah Dhooge, Robert J Hartsuiker.   

Abstract

In their comment, Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2011) argue against our interpretation of the distractor frequency effect in terms of a late blocking mechanism. They state that the experiments reported by Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010) can be incorporated in WEAVER++ when assuming an early input blocking mechanism. We first rectify a misunderstanding regarding the claim of the target article. Next, we show that Roelofs et al. provide no evidence that allows differentiating between early and late blocking accounts. We end by providing evidence in favor of our claim that distractor blocking occurs late and specify our blocking account in terms of verbal self-monitoring.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23339376     DOI: 10.1037/a0028473

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  1 in total

1.  Response competition better explains Stroop interference than does response exclusion.

Authors:  Ardi Roelofs
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-11-24
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.