C. M. MacLeod and P. A. MacDonald (2000) suggested that congruent and incongruent Stroop stimuli cause more task conflict than neutral stimuli because the anterior cingulate cortex is more activated with these stimuli. This study investigated behavioral expression for this pattern. Experiment 1 reduced task conflict control by increasing the proportion of nonword neutrals. Additionally, half the trials had conflict or neutral cues. The control reduction revealed the task conflict. For noncued trials, response time was longer for congruent stimuli than for neutral stimuli (reverse facilitation effect). In addition, response time for congruent stimuli was longer when stimuli were uncued vs. cued. Experiment 2 increased task conflict control by changing the neutral stimuli to noncolor words. Consequently, the task conflict expression disappeared.

The Stroop task is a central experimental paradigm used to probe cognitive control by measuring the ability of participants to selectively attend to task-relevant information and inhibit automatic task-irrelevant responses. Research has revealed variability in both experimental manipulations and individual differences. Here, we focus on a particular source of Stroop variability, the reverse-facilitation (RF; faster responses to nonword neutral stimuli than to congruent stimuli), which has recently been suggested as a signature of task conflict. We first review the literature that shows RF variability in the Stroop task, both with regard to experimental manipulations and to individual differences. We suggest that task conflict variability can be understood as resulting from the degree of proactive control that subjects recruit in advance of the Stroop stimulus. When the proactive control is high, task conflict does not arise (or is resolved very quickly), resulting in regular Stroop facilitation. When proactive control is low, task conflict emerges, leading to a slow-down in congruent and incongruent (but not in neutral) trials and thus to Stroop RF. To support this suggestion, we present a computational model of the Stroop task, which includes the resolution of task conflict and its modulation by proactive control. Results show that our model (a) accounts for the variability in Stroop-RF reported in the experimental literature, and (b) solves a challenge to previous Stroop models-their ability to account for reaction time distributional properties. Finally, we discuss theoretical implications to Stroop measures and control deficits observed in some psychopathologies. (PsycINFO Database Record

In Stroop matching tasks, participants indicate whether the color of an object matches the meaning of a color word printed in color. Previously in this journal, Luo (1999) concluded that interference between two incongruent representations of the same attribute (ink color) occurs prior to the response stage. However, this conclusion was based on questionable data analysis. We suggest analyzing the data by separating "same" and "different" responses and then analyzing three congruency conditions within the "different" responses: (a) congruence between word color and word meaning, (b) congruence between word color and object color, and (c) incongruence between word color, word meaning, and object color. In an experiment similar to Luo's, such an analysis revealed that responding was slowest in the first condition. This pattern of results does not fit with previous conclusions regarding this task, but rather indicates that task conflict and response competition contribute to interference. This analysis has implications for matching tasks other than the Stroop matching task.

No abstract

Performance of the Stroop task reflects two conflicts--informational (between the incongruent word and ink color) and task (between relevant color naming and irrelevant word reading). The task conflict is usually not visible, and is only seen when task control is damaged. Using the stop-signal paradigm, a few studies demonstrated longer stop-signal reaction times for incongruent trials than for congruent trials. This indicates interaction between stopping and the informational conflict. Here we suggest that "zooming in" on task-control failure trials will reveal another interaction--between stopping and task conflict. To examine this suggestion, we combined stop-signal and Stroop tasks in the same experiment. When participants' control failed and erroneous responses to a stop signal occurred, a reverse facilitation emerged in the Stroop task (Experiment 1) and this was eliminated using methods that manipulated the emergence of the reverse facilitation (Experiment 2). Results from both experiments were replicated when all stimuli were used in the same task (Experiment 3). In erroneous response trials, only the task conflict increased, not the informational conflict. These results indicate that task conflict and stop-signal inhibition share a common control mechanism that is dissociable from the control mechanism activated by the informational conflict.