Literature DB >> 2343770

Effect of conflicting cues on information processing: the 'Stroop effect' vs. the 'Simon effect'.

J R Simon1, K Berbaum.   

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between two sources of interference in human information processing: the Stroop effect and the Simon effect. Forty subjects pressed a left- or right-hand key in response to a Stroop color word located on the left or right side of a screen. For one group, ink color was the relevant cue and, for another group, word meaning was the relevant cue. Independent variables were: congruence, i.e., agreement or lack thereof between the ink color and meaning of the Stroop word; spatial correspondence, i.e., agreement or lack thereof between the location of the Stroop word and the location of the key used to make the response; and stimulus duration, i.e., 400 or 100 ms. Each of these variables had a significant effect on RT, and there were no significant interactions. According to Sternberg's additive-factor logic, these findings suggest that the Stroop effect (congruence) and the Simon effect (spatial correspondence) involve separate stages of processing. If one assumes that manipulation of stimulus duration effects the encoding stage, then results also suggest that neither the Stroop effect nor the Simon effect involves the stimulus encoding stage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2343770     DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(90)90077-s

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


  55 in total

1.  Influences of response-activating stimuli and passage of time on the Simon effect.

Authors:  Ulrich Ansorge
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2003-03-15

2.  Inferior frontal white matter asymmetry correlates with executive control of attention.

Authors:  Xuntao Yin; Yan Han; Haitao Ge; Wenjian Xu; Ruiwang Huang; Dong Zhang; Junhai Xu; Lingzhong Fan; Zengchang Pang; Shuwei Liu
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Functional connectivity in brain networks underlying cognitive control in chronic cannabis users.

Authors:  Ian H Harding; Nadia Solowij; Ben J Harrison; Michael Takagi; Valentina Lorenzetti; Dan I Lubman; Marc L Seal; Christos Pantelis; Murat Yücel
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 7.853

4.  Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect: evidence for a response-related origin.

Authors:  Inge M Keus; Wolf Schwarz
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-06

5.  Processing of irrelevant location information under dual-task conditions.

Authors:  Jochen Müsseler; Peter Wühr; Carlo Umiltá
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2005-09-24

6.  Evidence for gating of direct response activation in the Simon task.

Authors:  Peter Wühr
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-04

7.  Progressive increase of frontostriatal brain activation from childhood to adulthood during event-related tasks of cognitive control.

Authors:  Katya Rubia; Anna B Smith; James Woolley; Chiara Nosarti; Isobel Heyman; Eric Taylor; Mick Brammer
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  Induced cortical gamma-band oscillations reflect cognitive control elicited by implicit probability cues in the preparing-to-overcome-prepotency (POP) task.

Authors:  Paul D Kieffaber; Raymond Y Cho
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.282

9.  Bilingual experience and resting-state brain connectivity: Impacts of L2 age of acquisition and social diversity of language use on control networks.

Authors:  Jason W Gullifer; Xiaoqian J Chai; Veronica Whitford; Irina Pivneva; Shari Baum; Denise Klein; Debra Titone
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching.

Authors:  Matthew C Davidson; Dima Amso; Loren Cruess Anderson; Adele Diamond
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2006-03-31       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.