Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2007 | Original Article

Item-specific congruency effects in nonverbal auditory Stroop

Auteurs: Launa C. Leboe, Todd A. Mondor

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2007

Abstract

In the current study, participants judged as ‘low’ or ‘high’ either the location or the frequency of a single tone presented in one of two locations at one of two frequencies. The classification associated with the irrelevant feature could be either congruent or incongruent with the required response. The results of Experiment 1 revealed that responses were made more slowly on incongruent than on congruent trials, regardless of whether participants judged sounds according to their location or their pitch. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the probability that the classification associated with the irrelevant acoustic feature was consistent with the classification associated with the task-relevant dimension. In this experiment responses were made more quickly on congruent trials when the response associated with the irrelevant feature was likely to be consistent with the required response, and on incongruent trials when the response associated with the irrelevant feature was likely to be inconsistent with the required response.

vorige artikel Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-stress instructions?

volgende artikel Rapid onset and long-term inhibition of return in the multiple cuing paradigm

Adam, J. J., Boon, B., Paas, F. G. W. C., & Umiltà, C. (1998). The up-right/down-left advantage for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: A dual-strategy hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1582–1595CrossRef

Adobe Systems Incorporated (2005). Adobe Audition 1.5. San Jose, CA

Bauer, D. W., & Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus–response compatibility and the motor system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 367–380

Besner, D., & Stolz, J. A. (1999). Unconsciously controlled processing: The Stroop effect reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 449–455PubMed

Broadbent, D. E. (1954). The role of auditory localization in attention and memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 191–196PubMedCrossRef

Cherry, C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979CrossRef

Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Stimulu-set location does not affect orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility. Psychological Research, 69, 106–114PubMedCrossRef

Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing model of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361PubMedCrossRef

Danziger, S., Estevez, A. F., & Mari-Beffa, P. (2002). Stroop interference effects in partially colored Stroop words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 536–541PubMed

Green, E. J., & Barber, P. J. (1981). An auditory Stroop effect with judgments of speaker gender. Perception and Psychophysics, 30, 459–466PubMed

Green, E. J., & Barber, P. J. (1983). Interference effects in an auditory Stroop task: Congruence and correspondence. Acta Psychologica, 53, 183–194PubMedCrossRef

Hall, M. D., & Blasko, D. G. (2005). Attentional interference in judgments of musical timbre: Individual differences in working memory. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 94–112PubMedCrossRef

Hamers, J. F., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Bilingual interdependencies in auditory perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 303–310CrossRef

Hintzman, D. L. (1976). Repetition and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–91). New York: Academic

Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 649–667CrossRef

Jacoby, L. L., & Brooks, L. R. (1984). Nonanalytic cognition: Memory, perception and concept formation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 18, 1–47

Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(3), 638–644PubMed

Kahneman, D., & Henik, A. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual Organization (pp. 181–211). Hillsdale: Erlbaum

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270PubMedCrossRef

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323CrossRef

Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 219–234CrossRef

Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527CrossRef

Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376–400PubMedCrossRef

Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 22, 135–138

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203PubMedCrossRef

MacLeod, C. M. (1998). Training on integrated versus separated Stroop tasks: The progression of interference and facilitation. Memory & Cognition, 26, 201–211

MacLeod, C. M., & MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 383–391PubMedCrossRef

MacLeod, C. M., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 304–315

Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (1999). Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28, 903–923PubMedCrossRef

Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (2001). Synethesia: strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 61–65CrossRef

McClain, L. (1983). Stimulus–response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 266–270

Mondor, T. A., Zatorre, R. J., & Terrio, N. A. (1998). Constraints on the selection of auditory information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 66–79CrossRef

Morgan, A. L. R., & Brandt, J. F. (1989). An auditory Stroop effect for pitch, loudness, and time. Brain and Language, 36, 592–603PubMedCrossRef

Neely, J. H., & Kahan, T. A. (2001). Is semantic activation automatic? A critical re-evaluation. In H. L. Roediger III, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: essays in honour of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 69–93). Washington: American Psychological AssociationCrossRef

Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (1999). E-Prime Software System. Pittsburg, PA

Roe, W. T., Wilsoncroft, W. E., & Griffiths, R. S. (1980). Effects of motor and verbal practice on the Stroop task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 647–650PubMed

Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representations of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition (in press)

Schmit, V., & Davis, R. (1974). The role of hemispheric specialization in the analysis of Stroop stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 38, 149–158PubMedCrossRef

Simon, J. R., Mewaldt, S. P., Acosta, E., Jr., & Hu, J. (1976). Processing auditory information: Interaction of two population stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 354–358PubMedCrossRef

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662CrossRef

Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory and Cognition, 13, 304–319

Warren, L. R., & Marsh, G. R. (1979). Changes in event related potentials during processing of Stroop stimuli. International Journal of Neuroscience, 9, 217–223PubMedCrossRef

Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus–response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355–366CrossRef

Zhang, H., & Kornblum, S. (1998). The effects of stimulus–response mapping and irrelevant stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus overlap in four-choice Stroop tasks with single-carrier stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 3–19PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Item-specific congruency effects in nonverbal auditory Stroop
Auteurs: Launa C. Leboe
Todd A. Mondor
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2007
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2007
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0049-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2007

The effects of time pressure on chess skill: an investigation into fast and slow processes underlying expert performance

Exploring the mental number line: evidence from a dual-task paradigm

Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-stress instructions?

Gaze behaviour in hereditary prosopagnosia

What is a nice smile like that doing in a place like this? Automatic affective responses to environments influence the recognition of facial expressions

Sequence effects in a spatial cueing task: Endogenous orienting is sensitive to orienting in the preceding trial