What is word? The boundary conditions of task conflict in the Stroop task | mijn-bsl Skip to main content

Mijn bibliotheek

Shop

Nieuws
Boeken
Tijdschriften
E-learning
Web-tv
Video
Audio

Tips voor Mijn BSL

UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

15-09-2022 | Original Article

What is word? The boundary conditions of task conflict in the Stroop task

Auteurs: Eldad Keha, Eyal Kalanthroff

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

The Stroop task is characterized by two types of conflicts—information conflict (between the incongruent word and ink color) and task conflict (between the relevant color-naming task and the competing, irrelevant, stimulus-driven, word reading task). It is not yet clear what stimuli trigger the task of reading, and thus task conflict, and to what extent. In the current study, we applied a novel low-control (high neutral proportion) between-subject design to test the effect of different neutral conditions (symbols, same-letter strings, illegal-letter strings, pseudo-words, and real-words) on task conflict, in both manual and vocal response-types. Results indicated that in the manual task, a reverse facilitation effect, a signature of task conflict, appeared in all non-word conditions in a similar magnitude, but did not appear in the real-words condition. In the vocal task, reverse facilitation was found only in the symbols condition, regular facilitation was exhibited in all other neutral conditions, and larger facilitation appeared in the real-words condition. Our results indicate that the reading process and the activation of task conflict, depend on response-types (manual vs. vocal). In both response-types we found support for a word superiority effect, such that words trigger task conflict to a greater extent, however, we only observed an orthographic effect in the vocal response-type where stimuli consisting of letters triggered the reading task. We concluded that in the manual response-type, conflict arises only in the lexical route, whilst in the vocal response-type, conflict arises in the lexical and orthographic routes.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Mean RTs were 583 for geometric shapes, 634 for same-letter strings, and 646 for real-words.
 
2
Mean RTs were 514 for symbols, 540 for non-pronounceable heterogeneous strings, 543 for pseudo-words, and 547 for real-words.
 
3
Mean RTs were: 580 for symbols, 581 for same-letter strings, 607 for non-pronounceable heterogeneous strings, 641 for pseudo-words, and 651 for real-words.
 
4
The Hebrew language contains ‘final form’ letters, which are letters that are written in a different way if they appear at the end of the word (similar to Arabic and Greek). Thus, the Hebrew language presents a unique opportunity to create clear illegal-letter strings that are structurally impossible and unreadable.
 
5
We have used the exact same cueing procedure from Goldfarb and Henik (2007) and Kalanthroff et al., (2013) of cueing congruent and incongruent trials in half of the trials. However, this procedure did not affect the results and therefore we did not include it as a variable in the analysis. Note, that this finding is consistent with Jiménez et al. (2021).
 
Literatuur
Aarts, E., Roelofs, A., & van Turennout, M. (2009). Attentional control of task and response in lateral and medial frontal cortex: Brain activity and reaction time distributions. Neuropsychologia, 47(10), 2089–2099. PubMedCrossRef
Bench, C., Frith, C. D., Grasby, P. M., Friston, K. J., Paulesu, E., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Dolan, R. J. (1993). Investigations of the functional anatomy of attention using the Stroop test. Neuropsychologia, 31(9), 907–922. PubMedCrossRef
Binder, J. R., McKiernan, K. A., Parsons, M. E., Westbury, C. F., Possing, E. T., Kaufman, J. N., & Buchanan, L. (2003). Neural correlates of lexical access during visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(3), 372–393. PubMedCrossRef
Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Chanani, S. (2011a). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 844. PubMed
Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., Scullin, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2011b). Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1595. PubMed
Brown, M., & Besner, D. (2001). On a variant of Stroop’s paradigm: Which cognitions press your buttons? Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 903–904. CrossRef
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. PubMedCrossRef
Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100(4), 589–608. CrossRef
Duscherer, K., & Holender, D. (2002). No negative semantic priming from unconscious flanker words in sight. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 28(4), 839–853. PubMedCrossRef
Entel, O., Tzelgov, J., Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Shahar, N. (2015). Exploring relations between task conflict and informational conflict in the Stroop task. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79(6), 913–927. PubMedCrossRef
Entel, O., & Tzelgov, J. (2018). Focusing on task conflict in the Stroop effect. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 82(2), 284–295. PubMedCrossRef
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. PubMedCrossRef
Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(6), 627–635. CrossRef
Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception (classic). Psychology press. CrossRef
Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2007). Evidence for task conflict in the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1170–1176. PubMed
Gansonre, C., Højlund, A., Leminen, A., Bailey, C., & Shtyrov, Y. (2018). Task-free auditory EEG paradigm for probing multiple levels of speech processing in the brain. Psychophysiology, 55(11), e13216. PubMedCrossRef
Hasshim, N., & Parris, B. A. (2015). Assessing stimulus–stimulus (semantic) conflict in the Stroop task using saccadic two-to-one color response mapping and preresponse pupillary measures. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(8), 2601–2610. CrossRef
Hershman, R., & Henik, A. (2019). Dissociation between reaction time and pupil dilation in the Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 1899–1909. PubMed
Hershman, R., Levin, Y., Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (2021a). Neutral stimuli and pupillometric task conflict. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85(3), 1084–1092. PubMedCrossRef
Hershman, R., Levin, Y., Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (2021b). The contribution of meaning to the detection of task conflict. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(9), 1553–1561. CrossRef
Incera, S., & McLennan, C. T. (2016). Mouse tracking reveals that bilinguals behave like experts. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 610–620. CrossRef
Jiang, J., Heller, K., & Egner, T. (2014). Bayesian modeling of flexible cognitive control. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 30–43. CrossRef
Jiménez, L., Méndez, C., Abrahamse, E., & Braem, S. (2021). It is harder than you think: On the boundary conditions of exploiting congruency cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(10), 1686. PubMed
Joubert, S., Beauregard, M., Walter, N., Bourgouin, P., Beaudoin, G., Leroux, J. M., Karama, S., & Lecours, A. R. (2004). Neural correlates of lexical and sublexical processes in reading. Brain and Language, 89(1), 9–20. PubMedCrossRef
Kalanthroff, E., Avnit, A., Henik, A., Davelaar, E. J., & Usher, M. (2015). Stroop proactive control and task conflict are modulated by concurrent working memory load. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(3), 869–875. CrossRef
Kalanthroff, E., Davelaar, E. J., Henik, A., Goldfarb, L., & Usher, M. (2018). Task conflict and proactive control: A computational theory of the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 125(1), 59–82. PubMedCrossRef
Kalanthroff, E., Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2013). Evidence for interaction between the stop signal and the Stroop task conflict. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 579–592. PubMed
Kalanthroff, E., & Henik, A. (2013). Individual but not fragile: Individual differences in task control predict Stroop facilitation. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(2), 413–419. PubMedCrossRef
Kalanthroff, E., Henik, A., Derakshan, N., & Usher, M. (2016). Anxiety, emotional distraction, and attentional control in the Stroop task. Emotion, 16(3), 293–300. PubMedCrossRef
Kalanthroff, E., Henik, A., Simpson, H. B., Todder, D., & Anholt, G. E. (2017). To do or not to do? Task control deficit in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behavior Therapy, 48(5), 603–613. PubMedCrossRef
Keele, S. W. (1972). Attention demands of memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93(2), 245–248. 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(5660), 1023–1026. PubMedCrossRef
Kinoshita, S., De Wit, B., & Norris, D. (2017). The magic of words reconsidered: Investigating the automaticity of reading color-neutral words in the Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(3), 369–384. PubMed
Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 433–444. CrossRef
La Heij, W., & Boelens, H. (2011). Color–object interference: further tests of an executive control account. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(1), 156–169. PubMedCrossRef
La Heij, W., Boelens, H., & Kuipers, J. R. (2010). Object interference in children’s colour and position naming: Lexical interference or task-set competition? Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(4), 568–588. CrossRef
Levin, Y., & Tzelgov, J. (2016). What Klein’s “semantic gradient” does and does not really show: decomposing Stroop interference into task and informational conflict effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 249. PubMedPubMedCentral
Martin, C. D., Nazir, T., Thierry, G., Paulignan, Y., & Démonet, J. F. (2006). Perceptual and lexical effects in letter identification: an event-related potential study of the word superiority effect. Brain Research, 1098(1), 153–160. PubMedCrossRef
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163. PubMedCrossRef
McWilliam, L., Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2009). The linguistic status of text message abbreviations: an exploration using a Stroop task. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 970–974. CrossRef
Menard, M. T., Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., Alpert, N. M., & Rauch, S. L. (1996). Encoding words and pictures: a positron emission tomography study. Neuropsychologia, 34(3), 185–194. PubMedCrossRef
Milham, M. P., Erickson, K. I., Banich, M. T., Kramer, A. F., Webb, A., Wszalek, T., & Cohen, N. J. (2002). Attentional control in the aging brain: Insights from an fMRI study of the stroop task. Brain and Cognition, 49(3), 277–296. PubMedCrossRef
Mills, L. (2017). Does neutral proportion modulate attentional control of task conflict in the Stroop task. (Unpublished Masters thesis). Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Monsell, S., Taylor, T. J., & Murphy, K. (2001). Naming the color of a word: is it responses or task sets that compete? Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 137–151. CrossRef
Morton, J., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Selective attention to words and colours. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(3), 387–397. CrossRef
Norris, D. (2006). The Bayesian reader: explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113(2), 327. PubMedCrossRef
Parris, B. A. (2014). Task conflict in the Stroop task: when Stroop interference decreases as Stroop facilitation increases in a low task conflict context. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1182. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Parris, B. A., Sharma, D., Weekes, B. S. H., Momenian, M., Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2019). Response modality and the Stroop task: are there phonological Stroop effects with manual responses? Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 361. PubMedCrossRef
Pritchard, S. C., Coltheart, M., Palethorpe, S., & Castles, A. (2012). Nonword reading: Comparing dual-route cascaded and connectionist dual-process models with human data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1268–1288. PubMed
Proverbio, A. M., & Adorni, R. (2009). C1 and P1 visual responses to words are enhanced by attention to orthographic vs. lexical properties. Neuroscience Letters, 463(3), 228–233. PubMedCrossRef
Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110(1), 88. PubMedCrossRef
Roelofs, A. (2021). Response competition better explains Stroop interference than does response exclusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(2), 487–493. CrossRef
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. CrossRef
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5, 1329–1362. CrossRef
Sharma, D., & McKenna, F. P. (1998). Differential effects of the manual and vocal Stroop tasks. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 1033–1040. CrossRef
Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1398–1412. PubMed
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. CrossRef
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 727–735. CrossRef
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: role of episodic stimulus–task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 361–413. PubMedCrossRef
Xiao, Z., Zhang, J. X., Wang, X., Wu, R., Hu, X., Weng, X., & Tan, L. H. (2005). Differential activity in left inferior frontal gyrus for pseudo-words and real-words: an event-related fMRI study on auditory lexical decision. Human Brain Mapping, 25(2), 212–221. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Zahedi, A., Abdel Rahman, R., Stürmer, B., & Sommer, W. (2019). Common and specific loci of Stroop effects in vocal and manual tasks, revealed by event-related brain potentials and posthypnotic suggestions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(9), 1575. CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
What is word? The boundary conditions of task conflict in the Stroop task
Auteurs
Eldad Keha
Eyal Kalanthroff
Publicatiedatum
15-09-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01738-z