Attention, exposure duration, and gaze shifting in naming performance.

Roelofs, Ardi

doi:10.1037/a0021929

Cited by 4 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 75 publications

(178 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Naming RT is longer in the incongruent than in the neutral condition and often shorter in the congruent than in the neutral condition (for reviews, see MacLeod, 1991; Roelofs, 2003). In line with the RTs, participants gaze longer at incongruent than neutral stimuli and longer at neutral than congruent stimuli (Roelofs, 2011), which suggests that there are differences in attention demand among the Stroop conditions. Greater attentional effort is often reflected in a higher skin-conductance response, which is observed for the incongruent compared with the congruent Stroop condition (Naccache et al, 2005).…”

Section: Evidence That Word Planning Requires Central Attentionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…In line with this, Roelofs (2007) observed that participants gaze longer at picture–word stimuli in the semantically related than unrelated condition. Similarly, gaze durations depend on the amount of conflict in the color–word Stroop task (Roelofs, 2011). In a commonly used version of the Stroop task, participants name the color attribute of colored congruent or incongruent color–words (e.g., the words GREEN or RED in green ink, respectively; say “green”) or neutral series of Xs.…”

Section: Evidence That Word Planning Requires Central Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Color removal not only reduces Stroop interference, but also Stroop facilitation. Moreover, color removal reduces gaze durations, suggesting reduced attention demand (Roelofs, 2011). …”

Section: Evidence That Word Planning Requires Central Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Attention demands of spoken word planning: a review

Roelofs¹

2011

Front. Psychology

Self Cite

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention and language are among the most intensively researched abilities in the cognitive neurosciences, but the relation between these abilities has largely been neglected. There is increasing evidence, however, that linguistic processes, such as those underlying the planning of words, cannot proceed without paying some form of attention. Here, we review evidence that word planning requires some but not full attention. The evidence comes from chronometric studies of word planning in picture naming and word reading under divided attention conditions. It is generally assumed that the central attention demands of a process are indexed by the extent that the process delays the performance of a concurrent unrelated task. The studies measured the speed and accuracy of linguistic and non-linguistic responding as well as eye gaze durations reflecting the allocation of attention. First, empirical evidence indicates that in several task situations, processes up to and including phonological encoding in word planning delay, or are delayed by, the performance of concurrent unrelated non-linguistic tasks. These findings suggest that word planning requires central attention. Second, empirical evidence indicates that conflicts in word planning may be resolved while concurrently performing an unrelated non-linguistic task, making a task decision, or making a go/no-go decision. These findings suggest that word planning does not require full central attention. We outline a computationally implemented theory of attention and word planning, and describe at various points the outcomes of computer simulations that demonstrate the utility of the theory in accounting for the key findings. Finally, we indicate how attention deficits may contribute to impaired language performance, such as in individuals with specific language impairment.

show abstract

Section: Evidence That Word Planning Requires Central Attentionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Evidence That Word Planning Requires Central Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attention demands of spoken word planning: a review

Roelofs¹

2011

Front. Psychology

Self Cite

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the arrows < and > were flanked by two Xs on each side. Pretests for the present experiments and previous work using the same paradigm (Roelofs, 2007(Roelofs, , 2008a(Roelofs, , 2008b(Roelofs, , 2011 revealed that participants cannot discriminate the arrow while fixating the Stroop stimulus. This is also demonstrated by Figure 2, where fixating the Stroop stimulus precludes discrim ination of the arrow, even though Stroop stimulus and arrow are much closer to each other than 24°.…”

Section: Estimating the Onset Of Articulatory Bufferingmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Roelofs, 2007Roelofs, , 2008aRoelofs, , 2008bRoelofs, , 2011, as illustrated in Figure 2. Colors were presented as colored rectangles, and incongruent words or Xs were superim posed onto these rectangles.…”

Section: Experim Entmentioning

confidence: 98%

Tracking eye movements to localize Stroop interference in naming: Word planning versus articulatory buffering.

Roelofs

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigators have found no agreement on the functional locus of Stroop interference in vocal naming. Whereas it has long been assumed that the interference arises during spoken word planning, more recently some investigators have revived an account from the 1960s and 1970s holding that the interference occurs in an articulatory buffer after word planning. Here, 2 color-word Stroop experiments are reported that tested between these accounts using eye tracking. Previous research has indicated that the shifting of eye gaze from a stimulus to another occurs before the articulatory buffer is reached in spoken word planning. In the present experiments, participants were presented with color-word Stroop stimuli and left- or right-pointing arrows on different sides of a computer screen. They named the color attribute and shifted their gaze to the arrow to manually indicate its direction. If Stroop interference arises in the articulatory buffer, the interference should be present in the color-naming latencies but not in the gaze shift and manual response latencies. Contrary to these predictions, Stroop interference was present in all 3 behavioral measures. These results indicate that Stroop interference arises during spoken word planning rather than in articulatory buffering.

show abstract

How attention controls naming: Lessons from Wundt 2.0.

Roelofs¹

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When models of the attentional control of vocal naming, applied to color-word Stroop and picture-word interference, were first computationally implemented and examined in 1990, an implementable model proposed by Wundt (1880, 1902) was not considered. Although these modern computer models, and more recent ones, clarify many aspects of the interference, most models fail to explain its time course, as outlined in Roelofs (2003). Wundt’s (1902) model assigns a key role to top-down inhibition, which is absent in most of the modern models. Here, an implementation of his model is presented, called Wundt 2.0. The necessity of perceptual inhibition was demonstrated by computer simulations of the interference and its time course, and supported by existing evidence from oscillatory brain activity in the alpha frequency band. Moreover, a new empirical study showed that Raven scores measuring the general intelligence factor g, discovered by Wundt’s student Spearman (1904), predict the magnitude of the Stroop effect in fast errors, in line with the model and evidence on alpha band activity. Also, the study provided evidence that response inhibition is absent during vocal naming in the Stroop task. To conclude, Wundt’s model has stood the test of time and provides a number of enduring lessons for our understanding of attention and performance.

show abstract

Attention, exposure duration, and gaze shifting in naming performance.

Cited by 4 publications

References 75 publications

Attention demands of spoken word planning: a review

Attention demands of spoken word planning: a review

Tracking eye movements to localize Stroop interference in naming: Word planning versus articulatory buffering.

How attention controls naming: Lessons from Wundt 2.0.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About