Input, decision, and response factors in picture–word interference.

Lupker, Stephen J.; Katz, Albert N.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.7.4.269

Cited by 99 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Probably the best known work using this task was by Lupker (1979;Lupker & Katz, 1981. In his 1979 paper, he confirmed Rosinski's (1977) finding that same-category words magnified interference relative to either unrelated words or pronounceable nonwords, which caused equivalent interference.…”

Section: Semantic Variation and The Irrelevant Wordmentioning

confidence: 53%

Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.

MacLeod

1991

Psychological Bulletin

4,777

165

3,607

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on interference in the Stroop Color-Word Task, covering over 50 years and some 400 studies, is organized and reviewed. In so doing, a set ofl 8 reliable empirical findings is isolated that must be captured by any successful theory of the Stroop effect. Existing theoretical positions are summarized and evaluated in view of this critical evidence and the 2 major candidate theories--relative speed of processing and automaticity of reading--are found to be wanting. It is concluded that recent theories placing the explanatory weight on parallel processing of the irrelevant and the relevant dimensions are likely to be more successful than are earlier theories attempting to locate a single bottleneck in attention.In 1935, J. R. Stroop published his landmark article on attention and interference, an article more influential now than it was then. Why has the Stroop task continued to fascinate us? Perhaps the task is seen as tapping into the primitive operations of cognition, offering clues to the fundamental process of attention. Perhaps the robustness of the phenomenon provides a special challenge to decipher. Together these are powerful attractions in a field of complex phenomena where the most subtie variation may exert a dramatic effect.In writing this article, I have two primary intentions. The first is to create a taxonomy of the empirical work on the Stroop task and its analogs. At least 70% of the more than 700 Strooprelated articles in the literature have been published since the reviews by Dyer (1973c) and Jensen and Rohwer (1966). Furthermore, Dyer's theoretical framework now seems in need of reconsideration, so that his review no longer provides the optimal organization. The second aim, then, is to survey existing theories, showing the critical weaknesses in the standard explanations and dispelling some myths that have arisen. I argue for a new theoretical framework for the Stroop effect, informed by contemporary cognitive psychology. This framework is more comprehensive than many earlier experiment-specific hypotheses, and suggests directions in which future research might profitably proceed.

show abstract

Section: Semantic Variation and The Irrelevant Wordmentioning

confidence: 53%

Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.

MacLeod

1991

Psychological Bulletin

4,777

165

3,607

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the unstable context retrieval condition, patients with frontal cortical lesions performed significantly worse than control subjects ( p ¼ 0.03), whereas patients with temporal lesions did not differ from controls ( p ¼ 0. 35).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rectangular contexts were abstract non-verbal coloured designs created for the purpose of this experiment using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. It has been demonstrated that semantic similarity, even between pictures and words [35], exerts an interfering influence on retrieval, as concepts compete with one another [36]. Because we wanted no pre-existing relationships (i.e.…”

Section: (C) Experimental Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ventrolateral and dorsomedial frontal cortex lesions impair mnemonic context retrieval

Chapados

Petrides

2015

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prefrontal cortex appears to contribute to the mnemonic retrieval of the context within which stimuli are experienced, but only under certain conditions that remain to be clarified. Patients with lesions to the frontal cortex, the temporal lobe and neurologically intact individuals were tested for context memory retrieval when verbal stimuli (words) had been experienced across multiple (unstable context condition) or unique (stable context condition) contexts; basic recognition memory of these words-in-contexts was also tested. Patients with lesions to the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) were impaired on context retrieval only when the words had been seen in multiple contexts, demonstrating that this prefrontal region is critical for active retrieval processing necessary to disambiguate memory items embedded across multiple contexts. Patients with lesions to the left dorsomedial prefrontal region were impaired on both context retrieval conditions, regardless of the stability of the stimulus-to-context associations. Conversely, prefrontal lesions sparing the ventrolateral and dorsomedial regions did not impair context retrieval. Only patients with temporal lobe excisions were impaired on basic recognition memory. The results demonstrate a basic contribution of the left dorsomedial frontal region to mnemonic context retrieval, with the VLPFC engaged, selectively, when contextual relations are unstable and require disambiguation.

show abstract

Section: The Response Exclusion Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this framework, the semantic interference effect arises because unrelated distractors can be excluded from production relatively sooner than distractor words corresponding to semantic category coordinates of the target pictures. For example, when naming a picture of a CAR, the semantically related distractor word truck satisfies the semantic criterion of naming a vehicle, whereas the unrelated distractor word Lupker, 1979;Lupker & Katz, 1981).The response exclusion hypothesis and the hypothesis of lexical selection by competition make different assumptions regarding the locus of the semantic interference effect. According to the hypothesis of lexical selection by competition, the semantic interference effect arises at the level of lexical selection.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.

Janssen¹,

Schirm²,

Mahon³

et al. 2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

100

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 experiments participants named pictures of common objects with superimposed distractor words. In one naming condition, the pictures and words were presented simultaneously on every trial, and participants produced the target response immediately. In the other naming condition, the presentation of the picture preceded the presentation of the distractor by 1,000 ms, and participants delayed production of their naming response until distractor word presentation. Within each naming condition, the distractor words were either semantic category coordinates of the target pictures or unrelated. Orthogonal to this manipulation of semantic relatedness, the frequency of the pictures' names was manipulated. The authors observed semantic interference effects in both the immediate and delayed naming conditions but a frequency effect only in the immediate naming condition. These data indicate that semantic interference can be observed when target picture naming latencies do not reflect the bottleneck at the level of lexical selection. In the context of other findings from the picture-word interference paradigm, the authors interpret these data as supporting the view that the semantic interference effect arises at a postlexical level of processing.Keywords semantic interference effect; lexical selection by competition; picture-word interference; delayed naming; response exclusion hypothesis A central question in language production research concerns the dynamical principles that govern the mechanism responsible for retrieving words from the mental lexicon. A widespread assumption in language production models is that lexical selection is a competitive process (e.g., La Heij, 1988;Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999;Roelofs, 2003). The hypothesis of lexical selection by competition proposes that the time it takes to select a NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript target word increases as the levels of activation of nontarget words increase. The primary source of empirical evidence cited in support of lexical selection by competition is the semantic interference effect (e.g., Lupker, 1979;Rosinski, 1977): Naming a picture of an object (e.g., CAR) is slower in the context of a semantic category coordinate distractor word (e.g., truck) compared to an unrelated distractor word (e.g., An alternative to lexical selection by competition is the view that the highest activated lexical node is selected, without regard to the levels of activation of nontarget lexical nodes (e.g., Caramazza, 1997;Dell, 1986;Stemberger, 1985). 2 If one adopted such a model of lexical selection then the range of semantic facilitation effects that have been reported in the literature would follow as a natural consequence (Costa et al., 2005;Finkbeiner & Caramazza, 2006;Mahon et al., 2007). Specifically, such semantic facilitation effects would arise as a result of semantic priming between distractor words and target pictures. However, if one assumed that the semantic facilitation effects arise during lexical selecti...

show abstract

Input, decision, and response factors in picture–word interference.

Cited by 99 publications

References 21 publications

Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.

Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.

Ventrolateral and dorsomedial frontal cortex lesions impair mnemonic context retrieval

Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About