The processing of conceptual information on spatial directions from pictorial and linguistic symbols

Shor, Ronald E.

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(70)90109-5

Cited by 50 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the meaning of the word was incongruent with the position (e.g., the word "north" at the bottom of the square), reaction time (RT) increased compared to a control condition in which the word was a nonsense syllable. Similarly, Shor (1970) found that when subjects indicated the direction of an arrow pointing up, down, left, or right, RT increased compared to a control condition when words located within the arrows were different from the direction of the arrow. Fox, Shor, and Steinman (1971) showed that interference to naming spatial direction decreased as the semantic aspects of the words ranged from incongruent names to space-related words to common words, rare words, and nonsense words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Judging pictorial and linguistic aspects of space

Palef

1978

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A test is made of the notion that Stroop-like interference and facilitation effects arise from two different sources, one pictorial and the other linguistic. It was hypothesized that when irrelevant information is pictorial, it interferes with a pictorial code used in the processing of the relevant information; when it is linguistic, it interferes with a linguistic code. The experiment required subjects to respond to (1) the meaning of a spatial word, (2)its absolute position, or (3) its relative position, while attempting to ignore the two irrelevant dimensions of the display. It was found that word meaning and absolute position information affected the speed of relative position judgments in an additive manner. No other Stroop-like effects were found. The results supported the hypothesis under test. It was concluded that the existence of different kinds of Stroop effect must be accommodated by current models of the phenomenon.A useful technique for investigating how people mentally describe and judge space is a modification of the Stroop (1935) experiment, in which spatial rather than color information is presented. The typical finding is that judgments of position or direction are interfered with by words whose meanings are incongruent with the meanings of the spatial displays. For example, White (1969) required subjects to respond to the position of a word that was north, east, south, or west within a square. When the meaning of the word was incongruent with the position (e.g., the word "north" at the bottom of the square), reaction time (RT) increased compared to a control condition in which the word was a nonsense syllable. Similarly, Shor (1970) found that when subjects indicated the direction of an arrow pointing up, down, left, or right, RT increased compared to a control condition when words located within the arrows were different from the direction of the arrow. Fox, Shor, and Steinman (1971) showed that interference to naming spatial direction decreased as the semantic aspects of the words ranged from incongruent names to space-related words to common words, rare words, and nonsense words. Finally, Palef and Olson (1975) demonstrated that the direction of interference, that is, whether spatial information interferes with judgments of word meaning or words interfere with judgments of space, depends on the relative processing speeds of the two sources of information. Words interfere with spatial judgments when they are processed faster than space; positions interfere with judgments of word meaning when they are processed faster.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Judging pictorial and linguistic aspects of space

Palef

1978

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although facilitation was larger than inhibition in this study, this pattern apparently is unique to the movement stimuli used by Dyer. For example, a study by Shor (1970), described later in this section, showed substantial interference and little facilitation when the nonverbal stimulus dimension was the direction in which an arrow pointed. In general, the spatial Stroop effect seems to reflect primarily interference when the irrelevant dimension is incongruent with the relevant dimension, but the interference is less than for the Stroop color-naming task (Clark & BrowneIl, 1975;Dalrymple-Alford, 1972;Dyer, 1973Dyer, , 1974MacLeod, 1991;Shor, 1970).…”

Section: The Basic Phenomenonmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…FinaIly, Shor (1970) conducted experiments using a spatial and pictorial analog to the standard Stroop task in which the two stimulus dimensions were not integrated. The direction name UP, DOWN, LEFT, or RIGHT was embedded within an outline drawing ofan arrow pointing in one ofthe four directions.…”

Section: The Basic Phenomenonmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of irrelevant location information on performance of visual choice-reaction tasks. We review empirical findings and theoretical explanations from two domains, those of the Simon effect and the spatial Stroop effect, in which stimulus location has been shown to affect reaction time when irrelevant to the task. Wethen integrate the findings and explanations from the two domains to clarify how and why stimulus location influences performance even when it is uninformative to the correct response. Factors that influence the processing of irrelevant location information include response modality, relative timing with respect to the relevant information, spatial coding, and allocation of attention. The most promising accounts are offered by models in which response selection is a function of (1) strength of association of the irrelevant stimulus information with the response and (2) temporal overlap of the resulting response activation with that produced by the relevant stimulus information.The role played by stimulus location in visual information processing has been a controversial issue. This issue has been investigated primarily by means ofvisual search tasks in which a target stimulus in an array of distractors must be detected or identified. Reaction time (RT) in such tasks is typically an increasing function ofarray size, and accuracy a decreasing function, when the target is defined by a conjunction of features (e.g., Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Van Zandt & Townsend, 1993), leading some authors to propose that attending to location is necessary for feature integration (e.g., Nissen, 1985;Treisman & Gelade, 1980). As expected if location must be attended in such situations, a stimulus for a second task shows a processing benefit when it occurs in a location adjacent to the target stimulus of the search task rather than in a more remote location (e.g., Hoffman & Nelson, 1981), and precuing the location in the array in which the target stimulus will occur facilitates its processing (e.g., Eriksen & Hoffman, 1972). However, facilitation from a location precue is also apparent when the target is presented alone and requires only a detection response (e.g., Bashinski & Bacharach, 1980;Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980), suggesting that it may be necessary to attend to the locaWe would like to thank Bernhard Hommel, Colin MacLeod, Bob Melara, Jim Neely, Richard Schweickert, Richard Simon, and Howard Zelaznik for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript. Reprint requests should be sent to Chen-Hui Lu, Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, or Robert W. Proctor, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1364. tion of any stimulus on which a response is based. Consistent with this possibility, Tsal and Lavie (1993) recently showed that when the relevant feature of a precue stimulus is nonspatial (e.g., color), there is still facilitation in the identification of a s...

show abstract

“…The Stroop effect is commonly called an impairment (usually slowdown) in responding to complex stimuli containing conflicting information, in comparison with responding to neutral stimuli varying only in the attended dimension (Pieters, 1981;Shor, 1975;Stroop, 1935). Although Stroop used only color words with colored ink, the hundreds of subsequent studies have demonstrated analogous effects with other dimensions and modalities, such as visual combinations of pictureword (Lupker& Katz, 1982;Rosinki, Golinkoff, & Kukish, 1975), or word-arrow (Shor, 1970), as well as auditory combinations of word-pitch (Hamers & Lambert, 1972;Melara & Marks, 1990c).…”

Section: Gamer Interference and Effects Of Congruencementioning

confidence: 99%

Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference

Ben-Artzi

Marks

1995

Perception & Psychophysics

151

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment examined cross-modal interference and congruence in speeded classification: Subjects had to identify compound (visual-auditory) stimuli as either low or high in spatial position (visualjudgment) or low or high in pitch (auditory judgment), in 16 conditions, each of which combined one of four possible pairs of tones, varying in frequency difference, with one of four possible pairs of dots, varying in positional difference. Both classification by position and classification by pitch revealed Garner interference (poorer performance than baseline, with orthogonal variation in the irrelevant dimension) and congruence effects (better performance with congruent than with incongruent stimulus combinations), but pitch classification showed more. Furthermore, the size of the pitch difference strongly affected classification by pitch and less strongly affected classification by position, but the size of the position difference affected neither. The findings are consistent with the view that Garner interference and congruence effects are closely related, perhaps arising from a common source, and suggest that the asymmetries could depend in part on the degree of dimensional overlap between stimuli and responses.Research in recent decades has revealed complex, and not yet well understood, interactions in the perceptual processing of multi modal and multidimensional stimuli. Especially notable is research concerning the extent to which different components of complex stimuli are attended selectively-that is, perceived distinctively-and how various experimental parameters, such as the task and the nature of the stimulus, affect attentional selectivity (

show abstract

The processing of conceptual information on spatial directions from pictorial and linguistic symbols

Cited by 50 publications

References 18 publications

Judging pictorial and linguistic aspects of space

Judging pictorial and linguistic aspects of space

The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects

Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About