Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference

McClain, Lucinda

doi:10.3758/bf03202864

Cited by 65 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present results replicate the findings of McClain (1983) and Zakay and Glicksohn (1985) for a different paradigm . It was shown that when both dimensions of a stimulus have compatible responses , the interference produced by stimulus incongruity varies depending on the degree of SRC.…”

Section: Iloosupporting

confidence: 92%

“…It is possible to specifically examine the role of SRC in Stroop interference by increasing the degree of correspondence between the irrelevant stimulus dimension and the response (Flowers, Warner, & Polansky, 1979;McClain, 1983;Zakay & Glicksohn, 1985). Flowers et al (1979) had subjects classify either the numerosity or numeric values of digits or words; responses were indicated by oral naming, card sorting, manual tapping, or oral "tapping" in five separate experiments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clearly changes in the relative structural similarity between the stimulus and the response may critically alter the ability to ignore an irrelevent stimulus dimension. The role of SRC has been directly examined by McClain (1983). She presented the words HIGH and LOW in high and low pitches with either the pitch or the word being designated the relevant dimension .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stimulus-response compatibility as a determinant of interference in a Stroop-like task

Fox

1992

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contribution of stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) to interference effects was tested in a Stroop-like task. Few previous studies have examined maximal compatibility for both dimensions of a stimulus. In the present study, the words UP, DOWN, LEFT, and RIGHT were presented on a computer screen . The word appeared at fixation and immediately began to move either up or down or left or right. Subjects responded either manually (by moving a joystick) or verbally according to (1) the verbal denotation of the word or (2) the direction the word was moving. Stimuli were congruent (e.g., UP moving up) or incongruent (e.g., UP moving down) and were presented in four conditions that varied in the degree of SRC (e.g., voice response to the meaning of the word = high SRC; voice response to the direction the word was moving = low SRC). Response times were slower in conditions with low SRC. The typical congruency effect was more pronounced in conditions with low SRC than in conditions with high SRC, showing that at least some of the interference observed in Stroop-type studies can be explained in terms of SRC.In the traditional Stroop task, names of colors are written in different colored inks (Stroop, 1935). When subjects are asked to read the word , they encounter little interference from an incongruent ink color, whereas when they are asked to name the ink color , they experience significant interference from an incongruent word (Dyer, 1973;Macleod, 1991).A number of studies have shown that Stroop interference can be significantly reduced by using non-naming responses such as buttonpressing (Flowers & Dutch, 1976;Keele, 1972;Virzi & Egeth, 1985). A possible explanation is that a printed word is "a program for a reader telling him how to pronounce it, but an object is not related to its name except arbitrarily" (Beller, 1975, p. 155). In other words, a nonverbal response is not compatible with a verbal stimulus, and therefore verbal incongruency does not produce interference. Likewise, Treisman and Fearnley (1969) have argued that interference with selective attention or response might arise only when the irrelevant stimulus attribute belongs to the same class as the response . The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that interference effects would be severely reduced if it were possible for subjects to generate a " color" response. This is the hypothesis that guides the present research: when there is maximal compatibility between the irrelevant stimulus dimension (cue) and the required re-

show abstract

Section: Iloosupporting

confidence: 92%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulus-response compatibility as a determinant of interference in a Stroop-like task

Fox

1992

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was found that incompatible responses produced substantially more negative priming (52 msec) than did compatible responses (16 msec). Since incompatible stimulusresponse mappings are associated with higher levels of Stroop-like interference (e.g., Fox, 1992;McClain, 1983), this pattern ofresults suggests that conditions associated with increased interference are also associated with increased negative priming. A second logical possibility is that interference and negative priming may be inversely related.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Interference and negative priming from ignored distractors: The role of selection difficulty

Fox

1994

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Stroop's (1935) seminal research showed that the task of naming ink colors was slowed if each color of ink formed a color word that did not match the correct response. Most of the numerous studies further exploring that effect (reviewed recently by MacLeod, 1991MacLeod, , 1992 have provided conflicting cues within the visual modality (as Stroop did) or in a few cases within the auditory modality (Green & Barber, 1981;McClain, 1983). However, Cowan and Barron (1987) found that the task of naming visually presented colors was slowed by the concurrent presentation of an audiotape containing a random sequence of spoken color words drawn from the same set as the correct responses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The nature of cross-modal color-word interference effects

Elliott

Cowan

Valle-Inclán

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cowan and Barron (1987) and Cowan (1989b) reported that color-naming performance was slowed by spoken color names drawn from the same set but presented in an order unrelated to the printed colors. Although Miles, Madden, and Jones (1989) and were unable to replicate this cross-modal effect, it is replicated here in two experiments with much better experimental control than before. However, the effect is shown to depend upon the relative timing of the color and word in a way that conflicts with the theoretical account that Cowan and Barron offered. While Cowan and Barron suggested that an irrelevant color word would contaminate the response set if this word occupied short-term memory when the color was about to be named, it appears that interference actually occurs only if the memory representation was formed very recently and had not been inhibited. Further implications for processing are discussed. Stroop's (1935) seminal research showed that the task of naming ink colors was slowed if each color of ink formed a color word that did not match the correct response. Most of the numerous studies further exploring that effect (reviewed recently by MacLeod, 1991MacLeod, , 1992 have provided conflicting cues within the visual modality (as Stroop did) or in a few cases within the auditory modality (Green & Barber, 1981;McClain, 1983). However, Cowan and Barron (1987) found that the task of naming visually presented colors was slowed by the concurrent presentation of an audiotape containing a random sequence of spoken color words drawn from the same set as the correct responses. Audiotapes with noncolor words had no such effect on color naming. This cross-modal effect is theoretically important because it demonstrates that subjects cannot voluntarily restrict lexical processing to the visual modality. Cowan and Barron used these and concomitant results (e.g., the additivity of visual and cross-modal interference) to argue for "a description of processing in which multiple verbal items enter a prespeech buffer and a selection mechanism examines buffer items in parallel." However, a controversy has followed the initial report.Miles, Madden, and Jones (1989) failed to replicate the cross-modal effects reported by Cowan and Barron (1987), but Cowan (1989b) pointed out ways in which the method of the original study had not been reproduced faithfully. briefly stated that they reproduced the method more faithfully and still failed to find the cross-modal interference, but Cowan (1989a) reported a replication with a similar method. Thus, reports of the success of this procedure have been mixed.It seems noteworthy that the original study and the successful and failed replications all suffered from some important methodological limitations. Rather than being obtained for each visually presented color individually, reaction times were obtained for pages each of 100 items. Also, because the spoken channel was not synchronized with the visual stimulus, the timing of audiovisual presentation was variable. A side effect of this pres...

show abstract

Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference

Cited by 65 publications

References 30 publications

Stimulus-response compatibility as a determinant of interference in a Stroop-like task

Stimulus-response compatibility as a determinant of interference in a Stroop-like task

Interference and negative priming from ignored distractors: The role of selection difficulty

The nature of cross-modal color-word interference effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About