Literature DB >> 528927

Effects of S-R mapping and response modality on performance in a Stroop Task.

J R Simon, P Sudalaimuthu.   

Abstract

Forty subjects performed a choice reaction time task in which the stimulus was the word Red or Green printed in either red or green ink. Subjects responded verbally in one block of trials and by key pressing in another block. For one group, ink color was the relevant cue, and for another group, the word was the relevant cue. Half of the subjects in each group were instructed to make the response that corresponded to the relevant cue (compatible S-R [stimulus-response] mapping); the other half were instructed to make the response that did not correspond (incompatible S-R mapping). In general, subjects who performed under compatible S-R mapping instructions reacted faster when the irrelevant cue corresponded to the response than when it did not. In contrast, subjects show performed under incompatible S-R mapping instructions reacted faster when there was a lack of correspondence between the irrelevant cue and the response than when there was correspondence. Results were consistent with a notion of logical recoding; that is, that instructing subjects to recode the relevant cue into the alternate color may have caused them to recode the irrelevant cue in the same logical manner. Results might also be interpreted to suggest that the Stroop effect is related to congruence between the relevant and the irrelevant cues rather than to correspondence between the irrelevant cue and the response.

Mesh:

Year:  1979        PMID: 528927     DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.5.1.176

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


  15 in total

1.  Naming and categorizing objects: task differences modulate the polarity of semantic effects in the picture-word interference paradigm.

Authors:  Ansgar Hantsch; Jörg D Jescheniak; Andreas Mädebach
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-07

2.  Pupillometric contributions to deciphering Stroop conflicts.

Authors:  Ronen Hershman; Avishai Henik
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-02

3.  A rose by any other name is still a rose: A reinterpretation of Hantsch and Mädebach.

Authors:  Eduardo Navarrete; Bradford Z Mahon
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2012-08-28

4.  Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice.

Authors:  R D Melara; J R Mounts
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1993-09

5.  Stimulus congruence and the Simon effect.

Authors:  M J O'Leary; P J Barber
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  1994

6.  Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility.

Authors:  R Nicoletti; C Umiltà
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1984-04

7.  Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference.

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

8.  An auditory Stroop effect with judgements of speaker gender.

Authors:  E J Green; P J Barber
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1981-11

9.  Color-object interference in young children: A Stroop effect in children 3½-6½ years old.

Authors:  Meredith B Prevor; Adele Diamond
Journal:  Cogn Dev       Date:  2005-06

10.  Coloring an action: intending to produce color events eliminates the Stroop effect.

Authors:  Bernhard Hommel
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2003-11-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.