Top

Psychological Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2013 | Original Article

The influence of attentional control on stimulus processing is category specific in Stroop tasks

Attentional control

Auteurs: Liwen Zhang, Cody Ding, Hong Li, Qinglin Zhang, Antao Chen

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2013

Abstract

It is still unclear how attentional control influences stimulus processing. We investigated this issue in four Stroop task experiments utilizing a pretest–training–posttest design. Subjects were given extensive training on the Stroop task using typical incongruent Stroop trials. The rates of color naming and word reading, which reflect the efficiency of stimulus processing, were assessed in pretest and posttest. The difference in rates between posttests and pretests reflects the influence of attentional control, acquired during the training phase, on stimulus processing. In Experiment 1, members of color category were used in the training phase; in Experiment 2, members of color category were used, but not in the training phase; in Experiment 3, they were neither in the color category nor were they used in the training. The results consistently showed that the suppression of word reading and the enhancement of color naming were developed in the training phases and they were not due to general training of color-naming task without conflict but to color-naming training with Stroop conflict (Experiment 4). More importantly, both suppression and enhancement affected the members of color category regardless of whether they were trained or not. The present findings suggest that the influence of attentional control on stimulus processing is category specific. We discuss the implications of the present results in terms of existing research on the locus of attentional control in Stroop tasks.

vorige artikel Task set flexibility and feature specificity modulate the limits of temporal attention

volgende artikel Top-down versus bottom-up: when instructions overcome automatic retrieval

Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: attention and performance. XVIII (pp. 35–70), Cambridge: MIT Press.

Banich, M. T., Milham, M. P., Atchley, R., Cohen, N. J., Webb, A., Wszalek, T., Magin, R. (2000). fMRI studies of Stroop tasks reveal unique roles of anterior and posterior brain systems in attentional selection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(6), 988–1000.

Bench, C. J., Frith, C. D., Grasby, P. M., Friston, K. J., Paulesu, E., Frackowiak, R. S., et al. (1993). Investigations of the functional anatomy of attention using the Stroop test. Neuropsychologia, 31(9), 907–922. doi:0028-3932(93)90147-R.PubMedCrossRef

Broadbent, D. E. (1957). A mechanical model for human attention and immediate memory. Psychological Review, 64(3), 205–215. doi:10.1037/h0047313.PubMedCrossRef

Carter, C. S., Mintun, M., & Cohen, J. D. (1995). Interference and facilitation effects during selective attention: an H215O PET study of Stroop task performance. NeuroImage, 2(4), 264–272. doi:10.1006/nimg.1995.1034.PubMedCrossRef

Chen, A., Bailey, K., Tiernan, B. N., & West, R. (2011). Neural correlates of stimulus and response interference in a 2-1 mapping Stroop task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 80, 129–138. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.02.012.PubMedCrossRef

Chen, A., Chen, X., Zhang, Q., & Li, H. (2012) Training with a 2-1 mapping paradigm reveals the profile of Stroop effects. Spanish Journal of Psychology (under revision).

Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97(3), 332–361. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332.PubMedCrossRef

Davidson, D. J., Zacks, R. T., & Williams, C. C. (2003). Stroop interference, practice, and aging. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 10(2), 85–98. doi:10.1076/anec.10.2.85.14463.CrossRef

De Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulus-response and stimulus–stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31(3), 353–359.CrossRef

Devlin, J. T., Jamison, H. L., Gonnerman, L. M., & Matthews, P. M. (2006). The role of the posterior fusiform gyrus in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(6), 911–922.PubMedCrossRef

Dulaney, C. L., & Rogers, W. A. (1994). Mechanisms underlying reduction in Stroop interference with practice for young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 470–484. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.470.PubMedCrossRef

Edwards, S., Brice, C., Craig, C., & Penri-Jones, R. (1996). Effects of caffeine, practice, and mode of presentation on Stroop task performance. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 54(2), 309–315. doi:0091-3057(95)02116-7.PubMedCrossRef

Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784–1790. doi:10.1038/nn1594.PubMedCrossRef

Ellis, N. R., & Dulaney, C. L. (1991). Further evidence for cognitive inertia of persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95(6), 613–621.PubMed

Ellis, N. R., Woodley-Zanthos, P., Dulaney, C. L., & Palmer, R. L. (1989). Automatic-effortful processing and cognitive inertia in persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93(4), 412–423.PubMed

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.CrossRef

Fenske, M. J., Aminoff, E., Gronau, N., & Bar, M. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual object recognition: object-based and context-based contributions. Progress in Brain Research, 155. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(06)55001-0.

Goldstone, R. L., & Kersten, A. (2003). Concepts and categorization. In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology (pp. 591–621). New York: Wiley.

Herd, S. A., Banich, M. T., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2006). Neural mechanisms of cognitive control: an integrative model of Stroop task performance and FMRI data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 22–32. doi:10.1162/089892906775250012.PubMedCrossRef

Kelley, W. M., Miezin, F. M., McDermott, K. B., Buckner, R. L., Raichle, M. E., Cohen, N. J., Petersen, S. E. (1998). Hemispheric specialization in human dorsal frontal cortex and medial temporal lobe for verbal and nonverbal memory encoding. Neuron, 20, 927–936. doi:doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80474-2.

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253.PubMedCrossRef

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163.PubMedCrossRef

MacLeod, C. M. (1998). Training on integrated versus separated Stroop tasks: the progression of interference and facilitation. Memory & Cognition, 26(2), 201–211.CrossRef

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, 14(1), 126–135.PubMedCrossRef

Masson, M. E. J., Bub, D. N., Woodward, T. S., & Chan, J. C. K. (2003). Modulation of word-reading processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(3), 400–418. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.132.3.400.CrossRef

Polk, T. A., Drake, R. M., Jonides, J. J., Smith, M. R., & Smith, E. E. (2008). Attention enhances the neural processing of relevant features and suppresses the processing of irrelevant features in humans: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of the Stroop task. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(51), 13786–13792. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1026-08.2008.PubMedCrossRef

Polk, T. A., & Farah, M. J. (2002). Functional MRI evidence for an abstract, not perceptual, word-form area. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(1), 65–72. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.131.1.65.CrossRef

Posner, M. I., & Dehaene, S. (1994). Attentional networks. Trends in Neurosciences, 17(2), 75–79.PubMedCrossRef

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: Erlbaum.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190.CrossRef

Shor, R. E., Hatch, R. P., Hudson, L. J., Landrigan, E. T., & Shaffer, H. J. (1972). Effects of practice on a Stroop-like spatial directions task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(2), 168–172.CrossRef

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.15.CrossRef

Treisman, A. M. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychological Review, 76(3), 282–299. doi:10.1037/h0027242.PubMedCrossRef

Treisman, A. M., & Geffen, G. (1967). Selective attention: perception or response? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 1–18. doi:10.1080/14640746708400062.PubMedCrossRef

van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick, M. M., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring, and levels of processing. NeuroImage, 14(6), 1302–1308. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0923.PubMedCrossRef

Verguts, T., & Notebaert, V. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518–525.PubMedCrossRef

Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13(4), 304–319.CrossRef

Warren, R. E. (1972). Stimulus encoding and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(1), 90–100.CrossRef

Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term promoting: role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00520-0.PubMedCrossRef

Zhang, H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 386–432.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: The influence of attentional control on stimulus processing is category specific in Stroop tasks
Attentional control
Auteurs: Liwen Zhang
Cody Ding
Hong Li
Qinglin Zhang
Antao Chen
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2013
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2013
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0457-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2013

Active route learning in virtual environments: disentangling movement control from intention, instruction specificity, and navigation control

The processing of Arabic numbers is under cognitive control

Self-rated right–left confusability and performance on the Money Road-Map Test

Top-down versus bottom-up: when instructions overcome automatic retrieval

Task set flexibility and feature specificity modulate the limits of temporal attention

Ideomotor perception modulates visuospatial cueing