The distractor frequency effect in the colour-naming Stroop task: An overt naming event-related potential study

Abstract

We used the event-related potential (ERP) approach to track the time course of the distractor frequency effect in the colour-naming Stroop task, i.e. the longer naming latency when to-be-ignored words are low frequency rather than high-frequency words. ERPs elicited by coloured words were influenced by distractor frequency in 160–220 ms and 300–400 ms time windows. In a Stroop variant of the colour-naming task, ERPs elicited by coloured words were affected by colour/word congruency in 300–400 ms and 500–600 ms time windows. Temporal and polarity features of distractor frequency and Stroop ERP responses suggest that the distractor frequency effect in the colour-naming Stroop task is characterised by at least two temporally and functionally distinguishable ERP effects: one early effect that we interpret as reflecting the processing of the distractor words and one mid-latency effect reflecting suppression of the distractor word

Verbal deception in picture naming

“…We conclude that, to produce a deceptive message, the system needs to suppress the prevalent response (i.e., the word corresponding to the target picture) before starting to lexicalize the false statement word. This would be congruent with findings on the Stroop and the picture-word interference naming tasks (Dhooge & Hartsuiker, 2010;Navarrete et al, 2015). Furthermore, our findings also seem congruent with research in the stopsignal naming paradigm (van den Wildenberg & Christoffels, 2010).…”

“…More frequent or early-acquired words tend to be considered as more accessible compared with low-frequency or late-acquired words because they are recognised and named faster (Barry et al, 1997). Empirical evidence has repeatedly shown a negative correlation between the lexical accessibility of the distractor word and the time it takes to name the target word in Stroop (Burt, 1999; Navarrete et al, 2015) and picture naming tasks (Catling et al, 2010; Dhooge & Hartsuiker, 2010; Miozzo & Caramazza, 2003). Additional support for the role of lexical accessibility in word suppression comes from evidence in the stop-signal paradigm.…”

Activation cascading in sign production.

“…Compared to low-frequency words, high-frequency words should be more activated, as demonstrated by the their faster and more accurate naming responses (Jescheniak & Levelt, 1994; Navarrete, Basagni, Alario, & Costa, 2006; Wingfield, 1968). However, high-frequency word distractors were found to interfere less (Dhooge & Hartsuiker, 2010; Hutson, Damian, & Spalek, 2013; Miozzo & Caramazza, 2003, 2005; Navarrete, Sessa, Peressotti, & Dell’Acqua, 2015; Scaltritti, Navarrete, & Peressotti, 2015; Starreveld, La Heij, & Verdonschot, 2013). The reduced interference found for high-frequency distractors has been explained by the assumption that a greater activation of the (spoken) phonology of the distractor leads to a faster exclusion of the distractor responses and, consequently, a faster response of the target word (de Zubicaray, Miozzo, Johnson, Schiller, & McMahon, 2012; Finkbeiner & Caramazza, 2006; Mahon, Costa, Peterson, Vargas, & Caramazza, 2007; Miozzo & Caramazza, 2003; but for alternative accounts, see Roelofs, Piai, & Schriefers, 2011; Starreveld et al, 2013).…”

“…This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Dell'Acqua, 2015;Scaltritti, Navarrete, & Peressotti, 2015;Starreveld, La Heij, & Verdonschot, 2013). The reduced interference found for high-frequency distractors has been explained by the assumption that a greater activation of the (spoken) phonology of the distractor leads to a faster exclusion of the distractor responses and, consequently, a faster response of the target word (de Zubicaray, Miozzo, Johnson, Schiller, & McMahon, 2012;Finkbeiner & Caramazza, 2006;Mahon, Costa, Peterson, Vargas, & Caramazza, 2007;Miozzo & Caramazza, 2003; but for alternative accounts, see Roelofs, Piai, & Schriefers, 2011;Starreveld et al, 2013).…”

The loci of Stroop effects: a critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional selection

“…After addressing these issues, Monsell et al (2001) reported no effects of word frequency on color-naming times, although there was a non-significant tendency for low-frequency words to result in more interference than high-frequency words. With the same methodological control as Monsell et al, but with a greater difference in frequency between the high and low conditions, Burt (1994Burt ( , 1999Burt ( , 2002 has repeatedly reported that low-frequency words produce significantly more interference than high-frequency words (findings recently replicated by Navarrete et al, 2015). A recent study by Levin and Tzelgov (2016) also reported more interference to lowfrequency words although their effects were not consistent across experiments, a finding that could be attributed to their use of a small set of words for each class of words.…”