Conflict components of the Stroop effect and their â€œcontrolâ€

Levin, Yulia; Tzelgov, Joseph

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00463

Cited by 28 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, over the last twenty years, a large number of different arguments and demonstrations have indicated that this view of Stroop interference is far from being complete (see e.g., Augustinova & Ferrand, 2014b;De Houwer, 2003a;Goldfarb & Henik, 2007;Kalanthroff et al, 2013a, b;Levin & Tzelgov, 2014MacLeod & MacDonald, 2000;Manwell et al, 2004;Monsell et al, 2001;Neely & Kahan, 2001;Parris, 2014;Schmidt & Cheesman, 2005;Zhang & Kornblum, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subscribing to the TC-RC accounts described above, Parris argued that maintaining a consistent focus on the relevant color dimension across time causes a low task conflict, rather than an increased inhibition of word meaning as has been proposed by De Jong and colleagues. More precisely, Parris's reasoning is rooted in the assumption that the expected increase in proactive control (Braver, 2012) resulting from short RSIs has an early impact on the processing of Stroop words and thereby reduces task conflict (but see e.g., Levin & Tzelgov, 2014).…”

Section: The Influence Of Short Response-stimulus Intervals On the DImentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to extend the so-called semantic Stroop paradigm (Neely & Kahan, 2001) - which already successfully distinguishes between the contribution of the semantic vs. response conflict to Stroop interference - so that it can take account of and capture the separate contribution of task conflict. In line with this idea, the Stroop interference observed using the aforementioned paradigm with both short and long RSIs (500 vs. 2000ms) did indeed reflect the specific contribution of the task, semantic and response conflicts. However, the contribution of task conflict (as opposed to the semantic and response conflicts) failed to reach significance when the semantic Stroop paradigm was administered with manual (Experiment 1) as opposed to vocal responses (Experiment 2). These experiments further tested the extent to which the specific contribution of the different conflicts can be influenced by the increased cognitive control induced by a short (vs. long) RSI. The corresponding empirical evidence runs contrary to the assumption that the reduction of overall Stroop interference by a short (vs. long) RSI is due to the reduced contribution of the task (Parris, 2014) and/or semantic (De Jong, Berendsen, & Cools, 1999) conflicts. Indeed, in neither experiment was the contribution of these conflicts reduced by a short RSI. In both experiments, this manipulation only reduced the contribution of the response conflict to the overall Stroop interference (e.g., Augustinova & Ferrand, 2014b). Thus these different results clearly indicate that Stroop interference is a composite phenomenon involving both automatic and controlled processes. The somewhat obvious conclusion of this paper is that these processes are more successfully integrated within multi-stage accounts than within the historically favored single-stage response competition accounts that still dominate current psychological research and practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Influence Of Short Response-stimulus Intervals On the DImentioning

confidence: 99%

Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the neutral-word contingency learning procedure, the situation is entirely different. While neutral words might engender some task conflict (Goldfarb & Henik, 2007;Levin & Tzelgov, 2014MacLeod & MacDonald, 2000), they should not engender response conflict. That is, there is no need to filter (Dishon-Berkovits & Algom, 2000;Garner, 1974;Melara & Algom, 2003) the distracting word at all.…”

Section: Other Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most influential ideas in recent decades in the cognitive psychology literature is conflict monitoring theory. According to this account, each time we experience a conflict (e.g., between a colour word and print colour in the Stroop task), attentional control is upregulated to minimize distraction on subsequent trials. Though influential, evidence purported to support this theoretical model (primarily, proportion congruent and congruency sequence effects) has been frequently criticized. Furious debate has centered on whether or not conflict monitoring does or does not occur and, if so, under which conditions. The present article presents an updated review of this debate. In particular, the article considers new research that either (a) seems particularly damaging for the conflict monitoring view or (b) seems to provide support for the theory. The author argues that new findings of the latter sort are still not compelling, several of which have already-demonstrated confounds and others which are plausibly confounded. Further progress has, to a greater extent than not, provided even stronger support for the position that conflict monitoring is merely an illusion. Instead, the net results can be more coherently understood in terms of (relatively) simpler learning/memory biases unrelated to conflict or attention that confound the key paradigms.

show abstract

“…We suggest that conflict monitoring is not limited to conflict at the stimulus or response level, but extends to conflict at the task level. formulated by Botvinick and colleagues (Botvinick et al, 2001(Botvinick et al, , 2004; see also Levin & Tzelgov, 2014): On the basis of the observation that ACC activation is not confined to situations with high response conflict, but generalizes to situations with high task conflict in a WM task (Badre & Wagner, 2004), Botvinick et al (2004) postulated Ba broader monitoring function^of the ACC (p. 542). Apart from neuroimaging observations, signatures of task conflict can also be observed on the behavioral level (e.g., Braverman & Meiran, 2015;Goldfarb & Henik, 2007;Moutsopoulou & Waszak, 2012;Steinhauser & Hübner, 2008 and on the neural level (e.g., Desmet, Fias, Hartstra, & Brass, 2011;Elchlepp, Rumball, & Lavric, 2013).…”

Section: A Wider Perspective Of Conflict-control Loops In Multitaskingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring and control in multitasking

Schuch

Dignath²,

Steinhauser

et al. 2018

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea that conflict detection triggers control adjustments has been considered a basic principle of cognitive control. So far, this "conflict-control loop" has mainly been investigated in the context of response conflicts in single tasks. In this theoretical position paper, we explore whether, and how, this principle might be involved in multitasking performance, as well. We argue that several kinds of conflict-control loops can be identified in multitasking at multiple levels (e.g., the response level and the task level), and we provide a selective review of empirical observations. We present examples of conflict monitoring and control adjustments in dual-task and task-switching paradigms, followed by a section on error monitoring and posterror adjustments in multitasking. We conclude by outlining future research questions regarding monitoring and control in multitasking, including the potential roles of affect and associative learning for conflict-control loops in multitasking.

show abstract

Conflict components of the Stroop effect and their â€œcontrolâ€

Cited by 28 publications

References 35 publications

Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals

Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals

Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review

Monitoring and control in multitasking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Conflict components of the Stroop effect and their â€œcontrolâ€

Cited by 28 publications

References 35 publications

Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals

Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals

Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review

Monitoring and control in multitasking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Conflict components of the Stroop effect and their â€œcontrolâ€