Neural correlates of stimulus and response interference in a 2–1 mapping stroop task

Chen, Antao; Bailey, Kira; Tiernan, Brandy N.; West, Robert

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.02.012

Cited by 82 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies using the Stroop task, for example, were excluded because the Stroop task is known to evoke cognitive processes, such as conflict resolution, response selection and attention 23,24 as well as different ERP components compared with go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. [119][120][121] Nevertheless, some findings in fMRI and positron emission tomography studies using the classic colour-word Stroop task are in line with the present findings. [122][123][124] Even with the strict selection of task paradigms, there is still variance in outcomes within go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms, which contributes to inconsistencies in results across studies.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 91%

Systematic review of ERP and fMRI studies investigating inhibitory control and error processing in people

Luijten

Machielsen

Veltman

et al. 2014

J Psychiatry Neurosci

320

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 91%

Systematic review of ERP and fMRI studies investigating inhibitory control and error processing in people

Luijten

Machielsen

Veltman

et al. 2014

J Psychiatry Neurosci

320

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In line with our results, current views hold that the processing of each language in late, mid-proficient language learners involves distinct areas during the initial steps of lexico-semantic integration, but that verbal information subsequently converges to constitute common higher-level semantic representations independent of the original language (Abutalebi 2008). According to this view, inhibitory mechanisms engaged in the Stroop task most likely differed due to the difference in conflict strength from a common semantic representations rather than because L1 and L2 were supported by distinct representations (though it is not clear that ACC is activated by semantic conflict in the Stroop task; Chen et al 2011). An additional argument supporting that the stimuli in L1 and L2 actually differed in term of conflict strength comes from studies reporting that similar conflict processing are engaged across the various conflict tasks (Botvinick et al 2001;West 2003;West et al 2005; though see Banich et al 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High and Low Stimulus-Driven Conflict Engage Segregated Brain Networks, Not Quantitatively Different Resources

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Task-irrelevant information is constantly present in our environment and may interfere with the processing of the information necessary to achieve goaldirected behavior. While task goals determine which information must be suppressed, the demand for inhibitory control depends on the strength of the interference induced by incoming, task-irrelevant information. Whether the same or distinct inhibitory processes are engaged to suppress various degrees of interference from task-irrelevant information remains largely unresolved. We investigated this question by manipulating the strength of the conflict induced by automatic word reading in a classical color Stroop task. High conflict was induced by presenting words in participant's native language and low conflict by presenting words in a less familiar language. Behavioral performance and electrical neuroimaging analyses of eventrelated potentials to the words were analyzed following a two-by-two within-subject design with factors conflict strength (high; low) and color word/word ink congruency (congruent; incongruent). Behaviorally, we observed a significant conflict strength 9 congruency driven by a smaller Stroop effect in the low-than high conflict condition. Electrophysiologically, we observed a significant conflict strength 9 congruency interaction at the topographic level during the period of the N450 components, indicative of the engagement of distinct configurations of brain networks. No such interaction was found at the level of response strength. Electrical sources analyses localized the topographic effect within the anterior cingulate cortex and basal ganglia, left middle frontal and occipital areas. We interpret our results in terms of qualitatively distinct executive mechanisms for reactive inhibitory control in conditions of high versus low stimulus-driven conflict.

show abstract

“…Chen, Bailey, Tiernan, & West, 2011;van Veen & Carter, 2005). To investigate whether this measurement of semantic conflict is affected by facilitation to either congruent or same-response trials, Hasshim and Parris (2014) compared performance on same-response and non-color-word neutral trials (e.g., wall in blue) in two experiments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was suggested that this finding could be interpreted as either (1) being due to two different processes (semantic interference and response facilitation) working in opposite directions, resulting in a negligible net effect, or (2) evidence for no effect of S-S incompatibility/ semantic conflict in the Stroop task. This latter possibility is important to consider, because not only is it contrary to studies that have attributed same-response trial performance to semantic input effects (De Houwer, 2003b;Schmidt & Cheesman, 2005), but the two-to-one response-mapping paradigm has been employed in recent studies putatively evidencing a dissociation between response and semantic conflict (Berggren & Derakshan, 2014;A. Chen et al, 2011;Z.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers have utilized congruent trials as a baseline to measure response conflict and have successfully differentiated response-and semantic-based conflict using distribution analysis (A. Chen et al, 2011;Steinhauser & Hübner, 2009). Furthermore, researchers have claimed to show that S-S and S-R forms of incompatibility activate different brain regions using neuroimaging (A.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing stimulus–stimulus (semantic) conflict in the Stroop task using saccadic two-to-one color response mapping and preresponse pupillary measures

Hasshim

Parris

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict in the Stroop task is thought to come from various stages of processing, including semantics. Two-to-one response mappings, in which two response-set colors share a common response location, have been used to isolate stimulus-stimulus (semantic) from stimulus-response conflict in the Stroop task. However, the use of congruent trials as a baseline means that the measured effects could be exaggerated by facilitation, and recent research using neutral, non-colorword trials as a baseline has supported this notion. In the present study, we sought to provide evidence for stimulusstimulus conflict using an oculomotor Stroop task and an early, preresponse pupillometric measure of effort. The results provided strong (Bayesian) evidence for no statistical difference between two-to-one response-mapping trials and neutral trials in both saccadic response latencies and preresponse pupillometric measures, supporting the notion that the difference between same-response and congruent trials indexes facilitation in congruent trials, and not stimulus-stimulus conflict, thus providing evidence against the presence of semantic conflict in the Stroop task. We also demonstrated the utility of preresponse pupillometry in measuring Stroop interference, supporting the idea that pupillary effects are not simply a residue of making a response.Keywords Stroop . Semantic conflict . Same response . Pupillometry . OculomotorThe Stroop effect refers to the finding that people are slower to name the color that a word is printed in when the word spells out another color (incongruent trials-e.g., the word red in blue) than to name the color of a square (Stroop, 1935) or to name a word's color when the word spells out the same color (congruent trials-e.g., the word red in red; Klein, 1964; see MacLeod, 1991, for a review). The Stroop task has been described as the gold standard for measuring attention (MacLeod, 1992) and has been the focus of influential models of attention (e.g., Cohen, Dunbar, & McClelland 1990;Glaser & Glaser, 1989;Roelofs, 2003).The Stroop effect has been attributed to having to resolve conflict at the response stage when the color and the meaning of the word each activate different responses (referred to as response conflict or stimulus-response conflict; Cohen et al., 1990;MacLeod, 1991;Roelofs, 2003). However, some researchers have posited that, in addition to interference/ conflict resolution at the response stage, performance in the Stroop task also requires conflict resolution at earlier processing stages (e.g

show abstract

Neural correlates of stimulus and response interference in a 2–1 mapping stroop task

Cited by 82 publications

References 35 publications

Systematic review of ERP and fMRI studies investigating inhibitory control and error processing in people

Systematic review of ERP and fMRI studies investigating inhibitory control and error processing in people

High and Low Stimulus-Driven Conflict Engage Segregated Brain Networks, Not Quantitatively Different Resources

Assessing stimulus–stimulus (semantic) conflict in the Stroop task using saccadic two-to-one color response mapping and preresponse pupillary measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About