Stroop-like interference in a match-to-sample task: Further evidence for semantic competition?

Green, Marshall L.; Locker, Lawrence; Boyer, Ty W.; Sturz, Bradley R.

doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2016.09.003

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Stroop-matching data confirmed the existence of the congruency effect; participants were slower and committed more errors in incongruent than in congruent trials. This performance in incongruent trials reflects the difficulty in overcoming the conflict between target and distractor Stroop attributes, an interference that is well established in the literature for both classic and matching Stroop tasks (e.g., Caldas et al, 2012;Dittrich & Stahl, 2017;Green et al, 2016;Portugal et al, 2018;Stroop, 1935).…”

Section: Stroop Interference: the Congruency Effectmentioning

confidence: 76%

Response inhibition in a new “Stroop-matching/stop-signal” protocol corroborates the assumptions predicted by the horse-race model.

Afonso¹,

Portugal²,

Caldas³

et al. 2021

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition is a broad construct referring to a set of functions responsible for suppressing stimuli or responses to prioritize more relevant ones. Several paradigms were used to assess different types of inhibition, such as the stop-signal and Stroop-like tasks. The horse-race model is the main theorical model that supports the stop-signal paradigm, which postulates that response inhibition depends on a competition between the processes involved in the emission and inhibition of a motor response. We investigated the assumptions of the horse-race model using a novel primary-task with different levels of difficulty (the Stroop-matching task) to understand how the stop-signal task performance varied according to the demands imposed by the different Stroop conditions. ANOVAs and planned comparisons revealed that the motor inhibition, assessed by inhibition rates and the inhibition-errors rates were influenced by the primary task reaction times (RTs) obtained in the different Stroop conditions. These results confirm that the primary task demand is a major factor that influences response execution/ inhibition in a stop-signal protocol. Moreover, they corroborate the horse-race model even under this new approach in which the primary task was not represented by a simple detection task, but instead required interference control. Altogether, our data indicate the potential use of our "Stroop/Stop" protocol to investigate the interaction between different inhibitory processes involved in each task and elucidate the relationship between different types of inhibition.

show abstract

Section: Stroop Interference: the Congruency Effectmentioning

confidence: 76%

Response inhibition in a new “Stroop-matching/stop-signal” protocol corroborates the assumptions predicted by the horse-race model.

Afonso¹,

Portugal²,

Caldas³

et al. 2021

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we learned from Seymour, the to-be-named color dimension of the word and the to-be-ignored word trigger two similar semantic codes. In a nutshell, the primary explanation for the semantic competition is that Stroop stimuli trigger semantic representations of both color and word dimensions; thus, the semantic competition between these two dimensions is created before the response output (Green et al, 2016). Luo explained that color naming required the activation of an appropriate network in the verbal-lexical system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors (Brown & Besner, 2001;Davelaar & Besner, 1988;Green, Locker, Boyer, & Sturz, 2016;Hasshim & Parris, 2015;Klopfer, 1996;Luo, 1999;Seymour, 1977;White, Risko, & Besner, 2016;Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996) have claimed that Stroop interference might occur at earlier processing stages related to semantic or conceptual encoding. Seymour debated that Stroop interference occurred because the to-be-named color and the to-be-ignored word activated two similar semantic codes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuropsychological Decomposing Stroop Interference Into Different Cognitive Monitoring: An Exploratory Factor Analysis

Rezaei

2019

Basic Clin. Neurosci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are two alternative explanations of the Stroop phenomenon. Several studies have revealed that the difference in performance on congruent and incongruent trials can arise from response interference. On the contrary, many authors have claimed that Stroop interference might occur at earlier processing stages related to semantic or conceptual encoding. The present study aims to determine the number and nature of the factors necessary to account for the multiple components of Stroop interference. Methods: The sample consisted of 247 undergraduate and postgraduate students. We employed the computerized version of the Stroop task adapted to the Iranian population. An exploratory principal components analysis was conducted on the correlations of 6 variables (reaction time under congruent and incongruent conditions, omission error under congruent and incongruent conditions, and commission error under congruent and incongruent conditions). Results: Two factors were extracted. The first factor may be semantic interference, and the second factor may be response interference. Conclusion: The findings of this research are consistent with the multiple-stage account, claiming that Stroop interference is because of both semantic and response interferences.

show abstract

“…In fact, EMG data revealed that these competing activations at response level affect motor performance and increase the frequency of double hand activations in trials with SMRC (Caldas et al, 2012). However, despite confirming that response conflict plays an important role in the Stroop-matching task interference, this does not exclude the joint participation of other mechanisms in the Stroop effect scenario, which remains as focus of debate (Luo, 1999;David et al, 2011;Caldas et al, 2012;Sturz et al, 2013;Green et al, 2016;Dittrich & Stahl 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

The Stroop-matching task as a tool to study the correspondence effect using images of graspable and non-graspable objects

Caldas

Machado-Pinheiro

Daneyko

et al. 2019

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Stroop-matching task is a variation of the Stroop task in which participants have to compare a Stroop stimulus attribute (color or word) to a second stimulus. The Stroop-matching response conflict (SMRC) represents an interference related to the processes involved in selection/execution of manual responses. In the present study we developed a variation of the Stroop-matching task in which the Stroop stimuli were matched to graspable objects (a cup) with intact or broken handles laterally oriented (Experiment 1) or to colored bars laterally presented (Experiment 2). It allowed testing the presence of the correspondence effect for lateralized handles and bars, and its possible influence on SMRC. Two different intervals (100 and 800 ms) were also included to investigate time-modulations in behavioral performance (reaction time and accuracy). Fifty-five volunteers participated in the study. In both experiments, significant SMRC was found, but no interaction occurred between SMRC and correspondence effect, supporting that the hypothesis of different and relatively independent psychological mechanisms is at the basis of each effect. Because significant facilitation for ipsilateral motor responses (correspondence effect) occurred for graspable objects but not for lateralized bars, the attentional shift/spatial coding view was not able to completely explain our data, and therefore, the grasping affordance hypothesis remained as the most plausible explanation. The time course of facilitation observed in the first experiment and by others indicates the importance of further studies to better understand the time dynamic of facilitation/inhibition of motor responses induced by graspable objects.

show abstract

Stroop-like interference in a match-to-sample task: Further evidence for semantic competition?

Cited by 6 publications

References 25 publications

Response inhibition in a new “Stroop-matching/stop-signal” protocol corroborates the assumptions predicted by the horse-race model.

Response inhibition in a new “Stroop-matching/stop-signal” protocol corroborates the assumptions predicted by the horse-race model.

Neuropsychological Decomposing Stroop Interference Into Different Cognitive Monitoring: An Exploratory Factor Analysis

The Stroop-matching task as a tool to study the correspondence effect using images of graspable and non-graspable objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About