Basic processes in reading: Is visual word recognition obligatory?

Risko, Evan F.; Stolz, Jennifer A.; Besner, Derek

doi:10.3758/bf03196356

Cited by 39 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More generally, Lamers and Roelofs (2007) provided evidence that factors that reduce gestalt grouping of the color word and the color carrier reduce the size of the Stroop effect, as would be expected if the color word is processed only when it is attended. Risko, Stolz, and Besner (2005) provided additional evidence that visual word recognition does not occur without visual attention. In their Experiment 1, participants saw displays containing a color word and a variable number of neutral words, with a single word being colored.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Influence of color word availability on the Stroop color-naming effect

Kim

Cho

Yamaguchi

et al. 2008

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1540Although people's sensory systems receive large amounts of information about their surroundings, only a fraction of that information is processed at a deeper level. Selective attention is needed in order to process the information that is relevant to the person's intentions and goals. However, in many situations, selective attention seems to be unnecessary for processing certain information. There are cases in which information that is irrelevant to a task is still processed to a level at which it distracts and affects a person's performance. Cognitive psychologists have been interested in this phenomenon for many years, trying to answer the question of why people cannot ignore some information that is irrelevant to their task goals. How irrelevant information affects performance has been studied using the Eriksen flanker task (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974), the Simon task (Simon, 1990), and the Stroop color-naming task (Stroop, 1935), among others. In these tasks, an irrelevant stimulus dimension is to be ignored, and a relevant dimension is to be attended and responded to quickly. For example, in the Stroop color-naming task, participants are asked to name the color of the target as quickly as possible while ignoring the meaning of a color word. Despite the fact that the instructions are to ignore the word's meaning, color-naming responses are slower when the meaning and the target color are incongruent than when they are congruent or when no color word is present (Stroop, 1935).The influence of irrelevant stimuli has long been taken to be evidence of automatic processing (see MacLeod, 1991;Moors & De Houwer, 2006). Automatic processing is often described as meeting three criteria (Posner & Snyder, 1975;: The processing (1) always occurs whenever an appropriate stimulus is present, regardless of whether there is an intention to process the stimulus; (2) is unavailable to consciousness, and so is impossible to stop once it starts; (3) demands zero attentional resources. Many researchers (e.g., Brown, Gore, & Carr, 2002;MacLeod & Dunbar, 1988) have suggested that word recognition in the Stroop task is automatic, even though this purported automatic processing does not necessarily meet these criteria in an all-or-none manner. For example, MacLeod and Dunbar proposed that a dimension that is processed more automatically will interfere with one that is processed less automatically, but not vice versa. Because word reading is more automatic than color naming, color naming is influenced by word reading, but word reading is not influenced by color naming. Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland (1990) developed a parallel distributed processing model of the Stroop effect on the basis of this premise; in this model, the Stroop asymmetry occurs because the associations of color names to color words are stronger than the names' associations to the actual colors. Roelofs (2003) argued against such relative-strength models, advocating instead a production rule model in which goal-referenced control plays an important role. However, h...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Influence of color word availability on the Stroop color-naming effect

Kim

Cho

Yamaguchi

et al. 2008

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This research has focused predominately on questions concerning selective attention (e.g., the debate over early vs. late selection; e.g., Brown, Gore, & Carr, 2002;Risko, Stolz, & Besner, 2005), for which words functioned as convenient stimuli (see Lachter, Forster, & Ruthruff, 2004, for a review). In contrast, questions regarding how attention influences visual word processing have received much less consideration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial attention modulates feature crosstalk in visual word processing

Risko¹,

Stolz²,

Besner³

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of spatial attention in visual word processing has long concerned researchers. This research has focused predominately on questions concerning selective attention (e.g., the debate over early vs. late selection; e.g., Brown, Gore, & Carr, 2002;Risko, Stolz, & Besner, 2005), for which words functioned as convenient stimuli (see Lachter, Forster, & Ruthruff, 2004, for a review). In contrast, questions regarding how attention influences visual word processing have received much less consideration. It is to these questions that we turned in the present investigation. Spatial AttentionVisual spatial attention allows individuals to select specific regions of the visual field for preferential processing (see Carrasco, 2006;Posner & Peterson, 1990, for reviews). The present investigation was concerned with covert spatial attention (i.e., shifts of spatial attention without eye movements). Attending to a location where a target appears has been demonstrated to improve performance across a number of different tasks (see, e.g., Carrasco, 2006).The most popular way to measure the influence of spatial attention is in the context of the spatial cuing paradigm (Posner, 1980). In this paradigm, a target is preceded by a spatial cue indicating the upcoming target's location (i.e., a valid trial) or a nontarget location (i.e., an invalid trial). Response times are typically faster on valid than on invalid trials (Posner, 1980). This cuing effect can be taken as an index of the influence of spatial attention on performance. For example, if spatial attention has no influence on processing, then no cuing effect should be observed.To understand the role of spatial attention in visual word processing, previous research has combined the cue validity manipulation with different word-processing tasks (Besner, Risko, & Sklair, 2005;Ducrot & Grainger, 2007;Hardyck, Chiarello, Dronkers, & Simpson, 1985;Lindell & Nicholls, 2003;McCann, Folk, & Johnston, 1992;Nicholls & Wood, 1998 ) demonstrated a robust cuing effect in lexical decision, suggesting that spatial attention influences word processing in some manner. Nicholls and Wood (1998) and Nicholls et al. also demonstrated a robust cuing effect in a reading aloud task. To better understand the nature of this cuing effect, the cue validity manipulation has been combined with manipulations that influence particular subcomponents of word processing. The nature of the joint effects of these factors can then be used to infer which reading processes are influenced by spatial attention (see, e.g., Sternberg, 1969). McCann et al. (1992) combined a manipulation of cue validity with manipulations of word frequency and lexicality in the context of a lexical decision task. The effects of cue validity were additive with both of these factors. Specifically, the size of the cuing effect was equivalent for high-and low-frequency words and equivalent for words and nonwords. Nicholls and Wood (1998), Nicholls et al. 989© One major idea about spatial attention is that it serves to modulate crosstalk ...

show abstract

“…However, there are other explanations for the Stroop effect that focus more on the role of attention and strategy during the Stroop task. An attentional-capture account was first proposed by Kahneman and Chajczyk (1983) and has been supported by subsequent studies (Brown et al 1995(Brown et al , 2002Risko et al 2005;Cho et al 2006;Kim et al 2008). Both Phaf's SeLective Attention (SLAM) Model (Phaf et al 1990) and Roelofs' production ("WEAVER++") models (Roelofs 2003) think it is the difference in the architecture rather than strength of the two dimensions (ink color and color word) that causes the Stroop effect: word dimension has shorter pathway.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Novel Symbol Learning-Induced Stroop Effect: Evidence for a Strategy-Based, Utility Learning Model

Wang

Tang

Deng

2015

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The automaticity level and attention priority/strategy are two major theories that have attempted to explain the mechanism underlying the Stroop effect. Training is an effective way to manipulate the experience with the two dimensions (ink color and color word) in the Stroop task. In order to distinguish the above two factors (the automaticity or attention/strategy), we revised the training paradigm of MacLeod's study (J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 14(1):126-135, 1988) by adding a control condition for the Stroop task on Chinese. We found that with training, the changing pattern for the Stroop effect was similar in Stroop tasks in novel symbols and in Chinese, showing markedly increasing interference and marginally decreasing facilitation. The current findings support the strategy-based learning account at early stages of novel learning of written symbols.

show abstract

Basic processes in reading: Is visual word recognition obligatory?

Cited by 39 publications

References 26 publications

Influence of color word availability on the Stroop color-naming effect

Influence of color word availability on the Stroop color-naming effect

Spatial attention modulates feature crosstalk in visual word processing

Novel Symbol Learning-Induced Stroop Effect: Evidence for a Strategy-Based, Utility Learning Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About