Abstract
In previous research, we have shown that the processing of targets that are presented to locations subject to inhibition of return (IOR) is affected by an inhibitory tagging mechanism. This mechanism acts by disconnecting activated representations of stimuli at inhibited locations from their associated responses. In two experiments, we assessed whether this inhibitory tagging mechanism of visual attention is also applied to task-irrelevant but prepotent dimensions of target stimuli, such as words in the Stroop task. To test this hypothesis, we examined the Stroop effect in an IOR procedure. The results showed that (1) IOR can be found in a color discrimination task, (2) the Stroop interference was reduced (Experiment 1) or eliminated (Experiment 2) when stimuli appeared at cued locations, as compared with cases in which they were presented at uncued locations, and (3) the effect of inhibitory tagging was limited to the shortest stimulus onset asynchrony value, replicating previous findings. These results agree with the idea that inhibitory tagging, occurring in IOR, affects the efficiency with which color words compete for responses in Stroop-like situations.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrams, R. A., &Dobkin, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 467–477.
Besner, D., Stolz, J. A., &Boutilier, C. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 221–225.
Catena, A., Fuentes, L. J., & Tudela, P. (in press). Priming and interference effects can be dissociated in the Stroop task: New evidence in favor of the automaticity of word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
Chasteen, A. L., &Pratt, J. (1999). The effect of inhibition of return on lexical access.Psychological Science,10, 41–46.
Dyer, F. N. (1971). The duration of word meaning responses: Stroop interference for different preexposures of the word.Psychonomic Science,25, 229–231.
Fuentes, L. J., Boucart, M., Vivas, A. B., Alvarez, R., &Zimmerman, M.A. (2000). Inhibitory tagging in inhibition of return is affected in schizophrenia: Evidence from the Stroop task.Neuropsychology,14, 134–140.
Fuentes, L. J., &Santiago, E. (1999). Spatial and semantic inhibitory processing in schizophrenia.Neuropsychology,13, 259–270.
Fuentes, L. J., &Vivas, A. B. (2000). The global precedence effect is not affected in inhibition of return.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,12, 472–488.
Fuentes, L. J., Vivas, A. B., &Humphreys, G. W. (1999a). Inhibitory mechanisms of attentional networks: Spatial and semantic inhibitory processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1114–1126.
Fuentes, L. J., Vivas, A. B., &Humphreys, G.W. (1999b). Inhibitory tagging of stimulus properties in inhibition of return: Effects on semantic priming and flanker interference.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52A, 149–164.
Hartley, A. A., &Kieley, J. M. (1995). Adult age differences in the inhibition of return of visual attention.Psychology & Aging,10, 670–683.
Henik, A., Friedrich, F. J., &Kellogg, W. A. (1983). The dependence of semantic relatedness effects upon prime processing.Memory & Cognition,11, 366–373.
Law, M. B., Pratt, J., &Abrams, R. A. (1995). Color-based inhibition of return.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 402–408.
Lupiáñez, J., Milán, E. G., Tornay, F. J., Madrid, E., &Tudela, P. (1997). Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later.Perception & Psychophysics,59, 1241–1254.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.Psychological Bulletin,109, 163–203.
MacLeod, C. M., & McDonald, P. (1995, November).Facilitation in the Stroop task is artifactual. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Maylor, E. A. (1985). Facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space. In M. I. Posner & O. S.M. Marin (Eds.),Attention and performance XI (pp. 189–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maylor, E. A., &Hockey, R. (1987). Effects of repetition on the facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space.Neuropsychologia,25, 41–54.
Posner, M. I., &Cohen, Y. A. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.),Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 513–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Posner, M. I., &DiGirolamo, G. J. (1998). Executive attention: Conflict, target detection and cognitive control. In R. Parasuraman (Ed.),The attentive brain (pp. 526–546). London: MIT Press.
Pratt, J. (1995). Inhibition of return in a discrimination task.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 117–120.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 643–662.
Taylor, T. L., &Klein, R. M. (1998). On the causes and effects of inhibition of return.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 625–643.
Tipper, S. P, Driver, J., &Weaver, B. (1991). Object-centred inhibition of return of visual attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 289–298.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant PM97-0002 from D.G.E.S. (Ministerio de Educación y Cultura) to L.J.F.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vivas, A.B., Fuentes, L.J. Stroop interference is affected in inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8, 315–323 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196167
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196167