A functional model to localize the conflict underlying the stroop phenomenon

Glaser, W.; Dolt, Margrit O.

doi:10.1007/bf00308930

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Derks and Calder (1969), Treisman and Fearnley (1969), and Uleman and Reeves (1971) have shown that nonlinguistic responses to the ink color of a stimulus are unaffected by a conflicting color word. These results argue for the independence of the color system and against models in which all forms of input are channeled through a single, central stage (i.e., Glaser & Dolt, 1977;Morton, 1969 Table 2, it appears that the difference between compatible and conflicting trials was greater for the two conditions in which translation was hypothesized (manual responses to word meaning and vocal responses to position) than for the two conditions in which no translation was hypothesized (vocal responses to word meaning and manual responses to position). To determine if these interference effects were significant, four t tests were performed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The translational model adequately accounts for results from conditions in which the response is initiated via the linguistic system, but so do simpler models based on the relative speeds of processing of word and color information (see Glaser & Dolt, 1977;Morton, 1969;Palef & Olson, 1975, for examples and Figure 1 for a schematic of this type of model). The problem was to devise a task that could be used to control the flow of processing so that the criterial dimension would arrive at the linguistic system's decision stage or the alternate system's decision stage, depending on the experimental condition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is meant to be an abstraction of the features common to models provided by Glaser and Dolt (1977), Klein (1964), Morton (1969), and Palef and Olson (1975), among others. The critical characteristics of these models are that all are based on the relative speeds of processing of the two stimulus dimensions and that a single, centralized response channel is hypothesized.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Toward a translational model of Stroop interference

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models ofthe Stroop effect that postulate single, centralized processing stations are fundamentally incorrect. A translational model is proposed in which parallel processing systems are hypothesized that are linked by a translation mechanism. Each system processes information using its own internal code specifically linked to the type of information the system processes. Information is passed between these systems via the translation mechanism. Evidence supporting this model comes from both the literature and the experiments reported in this article. Of primary importance is the demonstration that the pattern of interference that emerges is dependent upon the cognitive system used to process the information.The Stroop paradigm was employed in the four experiments reported. In this paradigm, first reported by Stroop in 1935,1 bidimensional stimuli are created such that either dimension of a stimulus may be responded to with the same overt response. Reaction time is measured of the response to one of the stimulus dimensions, while the subject attempts to ignore the other dimension, which will conflict on some trials with the correct response. For example, a subject who is shown the word RED printed in blue ink could respond either to word meaning by saying "red" or to ink color by saying "blue."?The interesting finding is that, when subjects must read the word out loud, there is no effect of a conflicting ink color. Reaction time in the conflicting condition is as fast as in the condition in which the color word names the ink color for the trial. However, when the subject must name the ink color, reaction time in the conflicting condition is greatly increased, compared to the time required for the condition in which the color word and the ink color have the same value (e.g., RED in red).Similar findings have been reported using different stimulus sets. For example, when word meaning and spatial position are combined (e.g., the words RIGHT or LEFT appear to the right or left of fixation), reading the word out loud is not affected by a conflicting spatial position, but naming the position the word occupies is slowed if a conflicting word appears in that position (Palef & Olson, 1975;Seymour, 1974).The models proposed to account for the Stroop effect have differed in detail but have two underlying assumptions in common. The first is that, at some point in the system, all the information passes through a single, centralized decision and/or response stage. This is true regardless of the particular task employed. To account for the asymmetry in the interference effects, the second assumption is made: The two dimensions are hypothesized to arrive at the decision stage at different times.In Figure 1, a schematic of this type of model is shown for the ink color/color word form of the Stroop task. Two stimulus-analyzing stages are hypothesized: one to abstract word meaning and another to abstract ink color information (see Treisman, 1969). These stimulus analyzers work in parallel, and output from them races toward a centra...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward a translational model of Stroop interference

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two dimensions of the Stroop stimulus are presumed to be processed in a parallel manner, with a response code activated for each (e.g., Glaser & Dolt, 1977;Keele, 1972;Morton & Chambers, 1973;Posner & Snyder, 1975;Warren, 1972). When both stimulus dimensions activate the same response code, no conflict occurs and responding may be facilitated by the redundancy.…”

Section: Processing Stage At Which the Effect Occursmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of irrelevant location information on performance of visual choice-reaction tasks. We review empirical findings and theoretical explanations from two domains, those of the Simon effect and the spatial Stroop effect, in which stimulus location has been shown to affect reaction time when irrelevant to the task. Wethen integrate the findings and explanations from the two domains to clarify how and why stimulus location influences performance even when it is uninformative to the correct response. Factors that influence the processing of irrelevant location information include response modality, relative timing with respect to the relevant information, spatial coding, and allocation of attention. The most promising accounts are offered by models in which response selection is a function of (1) strength of association of the irrelevant stimulus information with the response and (2) temporal overlap of the resulting response activation with that produced by the relevant stimulus information.The role played by stimulus location in visual information processing has been a controversial issue. This issue has been investigated primarily by means ofvisual search tasks in which a target stimulus in an array of distractors must be detected or identified. Reaction time (RT) in such tasks is typically an increasing function ofarray size, and accuracy a decreasing function, when the target is defined by a conjunction of features (e.g., Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Van Zandt & Townsend, 1993), leading some authors to propose that attending to location is necessary for feature integration (e.g., Nissen, 1985;Treisman & Gelade, 1980). As expected if location must be attended in such situations, a stimulus for a second task shows a processing benefit when it occurs in a location adjacent to the target stimulus of the search task rather than in a more remote location (e.g., Hoffman & Nelson, 1981), and precuing the location in the array in which the target stimulus will occur facilitates its processing (e.g., Eriksen & Hoffman, 1972). However, facilitation from a location precue is also apparent when the target is presented alone and requires only a detection response (e.g., Bashinski & Bacharach, 1980;Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980), suggesting that it may be necessary to attend to the locaWe would like to thank Bernhard Hommel, Colin MacLeod, Bob Melara, Jim Neely, Richard Schweickert, Richard Simon, and Howard Zelaznik for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript. Reprint requests should be sent to Chen-Hui Lu, Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, or Robert W. Proctor, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1364. tion of any stimulus on which a response is based. Consistent with this possibility, Tsal and Lavie (1993) recently showed that when the relevant feature of a precue stimulus is nonspatial (e.g., color), there is still facilitation in the identification of a s...

show abstract

“…Its reversal when P(M 1 ) =0.2 indicates that it arises from the expected, rather than from the actual, relation between the modalities of the two stimuli. An ad hoc explanation of it, based on recent accounts of the Stroop effect (Dyer, 1973;Glaser & Dolt, 1977) and other phenomena demonstrating the interfering effects of irrelevant information (Harvey, 1980), is as follows. Subjects automatically categorize the modalities of the two stimuli as "same" on intramodal trials and as "different" on cross-modal ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual coding under conditions of second stimulus modality uncertainty in successive matching tasks

Harvey

1983

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects matched successively presented stimuli within and across modalities. In conditions in which they were informed of the modalities of the two stimuli, no differences in matching performance were obtained between the four types of match (visual-visual, auditory-auditory, visual-auditory, and auditory-visual). Thus, there appeared to be no difference between the modalities in ability to perceive or retain the particular stimuli used. In conditions in which subjects were informed of the modality of the first stimulus but only of the modality in which the second stimulus would appear on 80% of trials, there was again no significant difference between auditory-auditory and visual-visual matching. However, auditory-visual matching was much faster than visual-auditory matching when the second stimulus appeared in the unexpected modality. The results suggest that subjects prepare for both possible types of match when uncertain of the second stimulus modality and that the cross-modal asymmetry reflects the additional attentionalload that this incurs.Milewski and laccino (1982) examined inframodal and cross-modal performance asymmetries in a matching task. Subjects matched the lengths of two lines separated by an interstimulus interval (lSI) of 5 or 20 sec. Each line was either visually (V) or haptically (H) presented. Some subjects were informed of the modalities of presentation of the two stimuli prior to each trial. Other subjects were not given this information. AU subjects showed better VV than HR matching performance. In contrast, the direction of the cross-modal asymmetry depended on whether or not subjects were informed of stimulus presentation modalities prior to each trial. When they were given this information, HV matching was better than VH matching. When this information was not given, the opposite pattern of results was obtained.Milewski and laccino (1982) argue that the asymmetries in the "informed" condition show that haptic memory is worse than visual memory and that intermodal transfer occurs early when it is required. Thus, information is stored in the modality of the second stimulus (S1) during the lSI. This is done even when it means that the inferior haptic memory must be used. Consequently, HV performance is better than VH performance. To account for the reversal of this cross-modal asymmetry when subjects are uncertain of presentation modalities, Milewski and laccino (1982) consider two alternative explanations. I shall The author's mailing address is: Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, England.term these the wait-and-see model and the dual-code model.According to the wait-and-see model, uncertainty concerning modality of S1 leads subjects to delay any intermodal transfer of information until Sz arrives. So, in contrast to what happens when subjects are certain of the modality of S1, information is stored in the modality of the first stimulus (SI) during the lSI. Consequently, worse haptic than visual memory now leads to worse HV than VH p...

show abstract

A functional model to localize the conflict underlying the stroop phenomenon

Cited by 26 publications

References 27 publications

Toward a translational model of Stroop interference

Toward a translational model of Stroop interference

The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects

Dual coding under conditions of second stimulus modality uncertainty in successive matching tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About