Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-05-2014 | Original Article

Analyzing distributional properties of interference effects across modalities: chances and challenges

Auteurs: Kerstin Dittrich, David Kellen, Christoph Stahl

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2014

Abstract

In research investigating Stroop or Simon effects, data are typically analyzed at the level of mean response time (RT), with results showing faster responses for compatible than for incompatible trials. However, this analysis provides only limited information as it glosses over the shape of the RT distributions and how they may differ across tasks and experimental conditions. These limitations have encouraged the analysis of RT distributions using delta plots. In the present review, we aim to bring together research on distributional properties of auditory and visual interference effects. Extending previous reviews on distributional properties of the Simon effect, we additionally review studies reporting distributional analyses of Stroop effects. We show that distributional analyses of sequential effects (i.e., taking into account congruency of the previous trial) capture important similarities and differences of interference effects across tasks (Simon, Stroop) as well as across sensory modalities, despite some challenges associated to this approach.

vorige artikel Dissociable effects of auditory attention switching and stimulus–response compatibility

volgende artikel Influence of auditory and audiovisual stimuli on the right–left prevalence effect

In the original task, the words “man” and “girl” were used. Here, we used the monosyllabic word “Frau” (woman) instead of “Mädchen” (girl) to maximize comparability with the word “Mann” (man). Participants first practiced the respective task with which they started during a block consisting of 40 trials. Subsequently, participants performed three experimental blocks of this task with 40 trials each. After completion of the first task, participants practiced the second task during one block of 40 trials and then performed three experimental blocks of the second task with 40 trials each. Twenty-four University of Freiburg students (13 women) participated for course credit or as paid volunteers; mean age was 26 years, ranging from 18 to 46 years.

The RT distribution was divided into nine bins; slopes of the individual delta plots were estimated via ordinary least-squares regression (see also Pratte et al., 2010).

We thank Mike Pratte for pointing out this interrelation.

Key mapping was counterbalanced across participants. Participants practiced the task in a block consisting of 24 trials. Subsequently, they performed two experimental blocks of 96 trials each. Twenty-four students from University of Freiburg (17 women) participated for course credit or as paid volunteers; mean age was 22 years, ranging from 19 to 34 years.

Note that a subtle modification such as using letters (A and B) as target stimuli in the visual Simon task might in fact represent a fundamental change to the nature of the task: One may ask whether the visual Simon task used by Wascher et al. (2001) in fact reflected a spatial Stroop task, because the letters A and B might be associated with left and right responses, respectively.

Ashby, F. G., & Townsend, J. T. (1980). Decomposing the reaction time distribution: pure insertion and selective influence revisited. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 21, 93–123.CrossRef

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.3.624.PubMedCrossRef

Burle, B., Possamaï, C.-A., Vidal, F., Bonnet, M., & Hasbroucq, T. (2002). Executive control in the Simon effect: an electromyographic and distributional analysis. Psychological Research, 66, 324–336. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0105-6.PubMedCrossRef

Burle, B., Spieser, L., Servant, M., & Hasbroucq, T. (2013). Distributional reaction time properties in the Eriksen task: Marked differences or hidden similarities with the Simon task?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0561-6.

Burle, B., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2005). Dynamics of facilitation and interference in cue-priming and Simon tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 619–641. doi:10.1080/09541440540000121.CrossRef

Chen, Z. (2003). Attentional focus, processing load, and Stroop interference. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 888–900. doi:10.3758/BF03194822.PubMedCrossRef

Cohen, G., & Martin, M. (1975). Hemisphere differences in an auditory Stroop test. Perception and Psychophysics, 17, 79–83. doi:10.3758/BF03204002.CrossRef

Davranche, K., Hall, B., & McMorris, T. (2009). Effect of acute exercise on cognitive control required during an Eriksen flanker task. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 628–639.PubMed

De Fockert, J. W., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science, 291, 1803–1806. doi:10.1126/science.1056496.PubMedCrossRef

De Jong, R., Liang, C–. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus–response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731–750. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.731.PubMed

Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2012). Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 911–929. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0304-1.CrossRef

Dittrich, K., & Stahl, C. (2011). Nonconcurrently presented auditory tones reduce distraction. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73, 714–719. doi:10.3758/s13414-010-0064-8.CrossRef

Dittrich, K., & Stahl, C. (2012). Selective impairment of auditory selective attention under concurrent cognitive load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 618–627. doi:10.1037/a0024978.PubMed

Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260. doi:10.1037/a0031031.PubMed

Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380–390. doi:10.3758/CABN.7.4.380.CrossRef

Elliott, E. M., Morey, C. C., Morey, R. D., Eaves, S. D., Shelton, J. T., & Lutfi-Proctor, D. A. (2014). The role of modality: auditory and visual distractors in Stroop interference. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 15–26. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.859133.CrossRef

Forstmann, B. U., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2008). Neural mechanisms, temporal dynamics, and individual differences in interference control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1854–1865. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20122.PubMedCrossRef

Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: a latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101–135. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101.CrossRef

Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.121.4.480.CrossRef

Green, E. J., & Barber, P. J. (1981). An auditory Stroop effect with judgments of speaker gender. Perception and Psychophysics, 30, 459–466. doi:10.3758/BF03204842.PubMedCrossRef

Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114, 348–355. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.008.PubMedCrossRef

Hamers, J. F., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Bilingual interdependencies in auditory perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 303–310. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80091-4.CrossRef

Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1992). The effects of intensity and irrelevant location of a tactile stimulation in a choice reaction time task. Neuropsychologia, 30, 91–94. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(92)90017-G.PubMedCrossRef

Hazeltine, E., Akçay, C., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2011). Keeping Simon simple: examining the relationship between sequential modulations and feature repetitions with two stimuli, two locations and two responses. Acta Psychologica, 136, 245–252. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.011.PubMedCrossRef

Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261–268. doi:10.1007/BF00419656.PubMedCrossRef

Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216. doi:10.1080/713756773.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136, 189–202. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011.PubMedCrossRef

Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0132-y.PubMedCrossRef

Jiménez, L., & Méndez, A. (2013). It is not what you expect: dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 271–284. doi:10.1037/a0027734.PubMed

Kahneman, D., & Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 497–509. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.9.4.497.PubMed

Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2012). Effortful control, depression, and anxiety correlate with the influence of emotion on executive attentional control. Biological Psychology, 91, 88–95. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.02.003.PubMedCrossRef

Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023–1026. doi:10.1126/science.1089910.PubMedCrossRef

Kim, S.-Y., Kim, M.-S., & Chun, M. M. (2005). Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16524–16529. doi:10.1073/pnas.0505454102.CrossRef

Leboe, L. C., & Mondor, T. A. (2007). Item-specific congruency effects in nonverbal auditory Stroop. Psychological Research, 71, 568–575. doi:10.1007/s00426-006-0049-3.PubMedCrossRef

Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., Fischer, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research, 75, 366–375. doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0314-3.PubMedCrossRef

Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: a review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 174–207. doi:10.3758/BF03210959.PubMedCrossRef

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.109.2.163.PubMedCrossRef

Matzke, D., Dolan, C. V., Logan, G. D., Brown, S. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Bayesian parametric estimation of stop-signal reaction time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1047–1073. doi:10.1037/a0030543.CrossRef

Matzke, D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). Psychological interpretation of the ex–Gaussian and shifted Wald parameters: a diffusion model analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 798–817. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.5.798.PubMedCrossRef

Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452. doi:10.1038/nn1051.PubMed

Morgan, A. L. R., & Brandt, J. F. (1989). An auditory Stroop effect for pitch, loudness, and time. Brain and Language, 36, 592–603. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(89)90088-6.PubMedCrossRef

Neumann, O., van der Heijden, A. H. C., & Allport, D. A. (1986). Visual selective attention: introductory remarks. Psychological Research, 48, 185–188. doi:10.1007/BF00309082.PubMedCrossRef

Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 112–117. doi:10.3758/BF03193821.PubMedCrossRef

O’Brien, J. C., Williams, H. G., Bundy, A., Lyons, J., & Mittal, A. (2008). Mechanisms that underlie coordination in children with developmental coordination disorder. Journal of Motor Behavior, 40, 43–61. doi:10.3200/JMBR.40.1.43-61.PubMedCrossRef

Pratte, M. S., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Feng, C. (2010). Exploring the differences in distributional properties between Stroop and Simon effects using delta plots. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 2013–2025. doi:10.3758/APP.72.7.2013.CrossRef

Proctor, R. W., Miles, J. D., & Baroni, G. (2011). Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 242–266. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0053-5.PubMedCrossRef

Proctor, R. W., & Shao, C. (2010). Does the contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence to the auditory Simon effect increase with practice? Experimental Brain Research, 204, 131–137. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2284-5.PubMedCrossRef

Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Nicoletti, R. (2003). Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect? Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 1318–1329. doi:10.3758/BF03194855.PubMedCrossRef

Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59.CrossRef

Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002a). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: attention and performance, XIX (pp. 494–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002b). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 312–323. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0104-7.PubMedCrossRef

Ridderinkhof, K. R., Scheres, A., Oosterlaan, J., & Sergeant, J. A. (2005). Delta plots in the study of individual differences: new tools reveal response inhibition deficits in AD/HD that are eliminated by methylphenidate treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 197–215. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.114.2.197.PubMedCrossRef

Roberts, K. L., & Hall, D. A. (2008). Examining a supramodal network for conflict processing: a systematic review and novel functional magnetic resonance imaging data for related visual and auditory Stroop tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1063–1078. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20074.PubMedCrossRef

Salzer, Y., Aisenberg, D., Oron-Gilad, T., & Henik, A. (2013). In touch with the Simon effect. Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000236.PubMed

Schumacher, E. H., Schwarb, H., Lightman, E., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task. Psychological Research, 75, 499–512. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0369-9.PubMedCrossRef

Schwarz, W., & Miller, J. (2012). Response time models of delta plots with negative-going slopes. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 555–574. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0254-6.PubMedCrossRef

Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00043-X.PubMedCrossRef

Sebastian, A., Pohl, M. F., Klöppel, S., Feige, B., Lange, T., Stahl, C., et al. (2013). Disentangling common and specific neural subprocesses of response inhibition. NeuroImage, 64, 601–615. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.020.PubMedCrossRef

Sharma, D., Booth, R., Brown, R., & Huguet, P. (2010). Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin amd Review, 17, 52–58. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.1.52.CrossRef

Shiu, L.-P., & Kornblum, S. (1999). Stimulus–response compatibility effects in go-no-go tasks: a dimensional overlap account. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 1613–1623. doi:10.3758/BF03213122.PubMedCrossRef

Shor, R. E. (1975). An auditory analog of Stroop test. Journal of General Psychology, 93, 281–288.PubMed

Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M. (1969). Processing auditory information: interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435. doi:10.1037/h0028034.PubMedCrossRef

Soutschek, A., Schwarzkopf, W., Finke, K., Hennig-Fast, K., Müller, H. J., Riedel, M., et al. (2013). Interference control in adult ADHD: no evidence for interference control deficits if response speed is controlled by delta plots. Acta Psychologica, 143, 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.02.013.PubMedCrossRef

Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 1117–1121. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1117.PubMedCrossRef

Speckman, P. L., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Pratte, M. S. (2008). Delta plots and coherent distribution ordering. The American Statistician, 62, 262–266. doi:10.1198/000313008X333493.CrossRef

Stahl, C., Voss, A., Schmitz, F., Nuszbaum, M., Tüscher, O., Lieb, K., et al. (2013). Behavioral components of impulsivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. doi:10.1037/a0033981.

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

Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.28.6.1345.PubMed

Valle-Inclán, F., & Redondo, M. (1998). On the automaticity of ipsilateral response activation in the Simon effect. Psychophysiology, 35, 366–371. doi:10.1017/S0048577298960917.PubMedCrossRef

van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Wylie, S. A., Forstmann, B. U., Burle, B., Hasbroucq, T., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2010). To head or to heed? Beyond the surface of selective action inhibition: a review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 1–13. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00222.

Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013a). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: a practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60, 385–402. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000218.PubMedCrossRef

Voss, A., Rothermund, K., Gast, A., & Wentura, D. (2013b). Cognitive processes in associative and categorical priming: a diffusion model analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 536–559. doi:10.1037/a0029459.CrossRef

Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Brown, S. (2007). On the linear relation between the mean and the standard deviation of a response time distribution. Psychological Review, 114, 830–841. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.830.PubMedCrossRef

Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 731–751. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.27.3.731.PubMed

Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2005). Dynamic aspects of stimulus–response correspondence: evidence for two mechanisms involved in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 453–464. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.3.453.PubMed

Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2007). The Simon effect for vertical S–R relations: changing the mechanism by randomly varying the S–R mapping rule? Psychological Research, 71, 219–233. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0023-5.PubMedCrossRef

Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 58, 705–731. doi:10.1080/02724980443000269.CrossRef

Wylie, S. A., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Bashore, T. R., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2010). The effect of Parkinson’s disease on the dynamics of on-line and proactive cognitive control during action selection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2058–2073. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21326.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1997). Distributional analysis and De Jong, Liang, and Lauber’s (1994) dual-process model of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1543–1551. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.23.5.1543.

Titel: Analyzing distributional properties of interference effects across modalities: chances and challenges
Auteurs: Kerstin Dittrich
David Kellen
Christoph Stahl
Publicatiedatum: 01-05-2014
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0551-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2014

Editorial for special issue: “Auditory attention: merging paradigms and perspectives”

Attention to memory: orienting attention to sound object representations

Inattentional deafness in music

Bottom-up influences of voice continuity in focusing selective auditory attention

Sensory ERP effects in auditory distraction: did we miss the main event?

Auditory attentional capture: implicit and explicit approaches