The authors have found the data presented in the C. Schooler, E. Neumann, L. J. Caplan, and B. R. Roberts (1997) article to be interesting and of potential value in constraining the further development of detailed theoretical models of Stroop performance. However, the authors have found that the relative speed of processing account of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) effects given by Schooler et al. in Experiment 1 fails to address several important and vexing issues faced by such accounts, which have been highlighted by existing formal models. The authors also have expressed concerns about Schooler et al.'s, interpretation of the reduction in Stroop interference observed among individuals with schizophrenia in Experiment 2. Whereas the authors have acknowledged that it is plausible to relate this to a dysfunction of prefrontal cortex, they have pointed to equally plausible alternative explanations, which are not addressed by the experiment or in the discussion in the Schooler et al. article.