Abstract
The presence of a distracting stimulus during performance of the Stroop color-naming task leads to dilution of the Stroop effect. Because the automatic activation of word meaning may interfere with the task-relevant stimulus feature (text color; stimulus-stimulus [S-S] interference) and the response (saying the text color; stimulus-response [S-R] interference), it is unclear which of these types of interference is diluted. We introduce a new dilution paradigm using word- and arrow-based Simon tasks, in which only S-R interference is present. Participants made a left or right response to a central color target. A task-irrelevant location-word (Experiment 1) or arrow (Experiment 2) distractor adjacent to the target produced S-R compatibility effects. An additional neutral word or symbol series (diluter) was sometimes presented on the opposite side of the target from the distractor. The compatibility effect was smaller when the distractor and diluter category domains matched than when they mismatched. This result provides evidence that S-R compatibility effects are susceptible to the presence of diluters that are categorically similar to the distractors.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, T. L., Roos-Gilbert, L., & Carr, T. H. (1995). Automaticity and word perception: Evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1395–1411.
Cho, Y.-S., Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2006). Stroop dilution depends on the nature of the color carrier but not on its location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 826–839.
Cho, Y.-S., Proctor, R. W., & Yamaguchi, M. (2008). Influence of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1020–1035.
Chun, M. M., & Potter. M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 109–127.
Dux, P. E., & Coltheart, V. (2005). The meaning of the mask matters: Evidence of conceptual interference in the attentional blink. Psychological Science, 16, 775–779.
Hommel, B. (1997). Interactions between stimulus-stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 59, 248–260.
Isaak, M. I., Shapiro, K. L., & Martin, J. (1999). The attentional blink reflects retrieval competition among multiple rapid serial visual presentation items: Tests of an interference model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1774–1792.
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 & Performance, 9, 497–509.
Keele, S. W. (1972). Attention demands of memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 245–248.
Kim, H., Cho, Y. S., Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Influence of color word availability on the Stroop color-naming effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1540–1551. doi:10.3758/PP.70.8.1540
Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research, 56, 130–135.
Liu, X., Banich, M. T., Jacobson, B. L., & Tanabe, J. L. (2004). Common and distinct neural substrates of attentional control in an integrated Simon and spatial Stroop task as assessed by event-related fMRI. NeuroImage, 22, 1097–1106.
Logie, R. H. (1995). Visuo-spatial working memory. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
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 & Review, 2, 174–207.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
Miles, J. D., & Proctor, R. W. (2009). Reducing and restoring stimulus-response compatibility effects by decreasing the discriminability of location words. Acta Psychologica, 130, 95–102.
Mitterer, H., La Heij, W., & van der Heijden, A. H. C. (2003). Stroop dilution but not word-processing dilution: Evidence for attention capture. Psychological Research, 67, 30–42.
Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2006). Orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task-irrelevant. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1021–1032.
O’Leary, M. J., & Barber, P. J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 830–844.
Peterson, B. S., Kane, M. J., Alexander, G. M., Lacadie, C., Skudlarski, P., Leung, H. C., et al. (2002). An event-related functional MRI study comparing interference effects in the Simon and Stroop tasks. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 427–440.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Proctor, R. W., Marble, J. G., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2000). Mixing incompatibly mapped location-relevant trials with location-irrelevant trials: Effects of stimulus mode on the reverse Simon effect. Psychological Research, 64, 11–24.
Proctor, R. W., Yamaguchi, M., Zhang, Y., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2009). Influence of visual stimulus mode on transfer of acquired spatial associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 434–445.
Roberts, M. A., & Besner, D. (2005). Stroop dilution revisited: Evidence for domain-specific, limited-capacity processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 3–13.
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.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1993). The role of position in object selection in vision. Psychological Research, 56, 44–58.
Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect for twodimensional S-R compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 815–828.
Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.
Wühr, P., & Waszak, F. (2003). Object-based attentional selection can modulate the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 983–994.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research described in the present article was supported in part by ARO MURI Grant W911NF-05-1-0153.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miles, J.D., Yamaguchi, M. & Proctor, R.W. Dilution of compatibility effects in Simon-type tasks depends on categorical similarity between distractors and diluters. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 1598–1606 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.7.1598
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.7.1598