Interference effects in an auditory stroop task: Congruence and correspondence

Green, Elizabeth J.; Barber, Paul

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(83)90001-x

Cited by 40 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gregg & Purdy, 2007; Green & Barber, 1981 & 1983; Henkin, Yaar-Soffer, Gilat, & Muchnik, 2010; Lew, Chmiel, Jerger, Pomerantz, & Jerger, 1997. Children . Jerger, Elizondo, Dinh, Sanchez, & Chavira, 1994; Jerger, Martin, & Pirozzolo, 1988; Jerger, Stout, Kent, Albritton, Loiselle, Blondeau, & Jorgenson, 1993; Most, Sorber, & Cunningham, 2007…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Perceptual Load on Semantic Access by Speech in Children

Jerger¹,

Damian

Mills³

et al. 2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To examine whether semantic access by speech requires attention in children. Method Children (N=200) named pictures and ignored distractors on a cross-modal (distractors: auditory-no face) or multi-modal (distractors: auditory-static face and audiovisual-dynamic face) picture word task. The cross-modal had a low load, and the multi-modal had a high load [i.e., respectively naming pictures displayed 1) on a blank screen vs 2) below the talker’s face on his T-shirt]. Semantic content of distractors was manipulated to be related vs unrelated to picture (e.g., picture dog with distractors bear vs cheese). Lavie's (2005) perceptual load model proposes that semantic access is independent of capacity limited attentional resources if irrelevant semantic-content manipulation influences naming times on both tasks despite variations in loads but dependent on attentional resources exhausted by higher load task if irrelevant content influences naming only on cross-modal (low load). Results Irrelevant semantic content affected performance for both tasks in 6- to 9-year-olds, but only on cross-modal in 4–5-year-olds. The addition of visual speech did not influence results on the multi-modal task. Conclusion Younger and older children differ in dependence on attentional resources for semantic access by speech.

show abstract

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gregg & Purdy, 2007; Green & Barber, 1981 & 1983; Henkin, Yaar-Soffer, Gilat, & Muchnik, 2010; Lew, Chmiel, Jerger, Pomerantz, & Jerger, 1997.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Perceptual Load on Semantic Access by Speech in Children

Jerger¹,

Damian

Mills³

et al. 2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of different methodologies are commonly used to investigate executive control, including flanker, Stroop, and spatial conflict tasks. While these tasks are nearly always presented in the visual modality (Fan et al, 2003;MacLeod, 1991), tests do exist in the auditory modality (Green & Barber, 1983;McClain, 1983), and produce similar behavioral results to the visual tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presentation modality influences behavioral measures of alerting, orienting, and executive control

Roberts

Summerfield

Hall

2006

J. Inter. Neuropsych. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Attention Network Test (ANT) uses visual stimuli to separately assess the attentional skills of alerting (improved performance following a warning cue), spatial orienting (an additional benefit when the warning cue also cues target location), and executive control (impaired performance when a target stimulus contains conflicting information). This study contrasted performance on auditory and visual versions of the ANT to determine whether the measures it obtains are influenced by presentation modality. Forty healthy volunteers completed both auditory and visual tests. Reaction-time measures of executive control were of a similar magnitude and significantly correlated, suggesting that executive control might be a supramodal resource. Measures of alerting were also comparable across tasks. In contrast, spatial-orienting benefits were obtained only in the visual task. Auditory spatial cues did not improve response times to auditory targets presented at the cued location. The different spatial-orienting measures could reflect either separate orienting resources for each perceptual modality, or an interaction between a supramodal orienting resource and modality-specific perceptual processing (JINS, 2006, 12, 485-492.)

show abstract

“…Auditory Stroop eVects have been found before (Cohen & Martin, 1975;Hamers & Lambert, 1972;Jerger, Martin, & Pirozzolo, 1988;Morgan & Brandt, 1989) even with children as young as three years old (Jerger et al, 1988). Some of these experiments have used judgments of speaker sex (e.g., Green & Barber, 1981, 1983, but in these cases stimuli have generally been male and female voices saying words like "man" and "girl," which doubled as actual descriptors of the voices themselves. When the sex of the voice was incongruent with the descriptor, participants took longer to classify the sex of the voice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%