Two-to-one color-response mapping and the presence of semantic conflict in the Stroop task

Hasshim, Nabil; Parris, Benjamin A.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01157

Cited by 27 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using an oculomotor version of the two-to-one responsemapping manipulation in the Stroop task, the RTs of saccadic responses and minimum pupil sizes were found to be consistent with the findings of the manual-response version used by Hasshim and Parris (2014). Saccadic RTs to congruent trials were fastest, followed by those of neutral and same-response trials, and the RTs to incongruent trials were the slowest.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…A Bayes factor of less than 0.33 indicates support for the null hypothesis, whereas one that is larger than 3.0 indicate support for the alternative hypothesis. Since we were investigating the difference between the same two trial types as Hasshim and Parris (2014), similar parameters were used to calculate the Bayes factor. Using a prior expected range of 6-45 ms for an effect with an assumed uniform distribution (i.e., all values were equally likely), the Bayes factor returned a value of 0.09, indicating strong support for the null hypothesis of no difference between the RTs of the two conditions.…”

Section: Saccadic Latenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since there were no prior findings on such an effect using minimum pupil sizes, the only reference for the size of the effect was the difference between either neutral and congruent or incongruent and neutral trials. The larger of the differences, 0.045 mm, was used as the upper bound, whereas the lower bound was the proportionate equivalent to the one used in Hasshim and Parris (2014), 0.006 mm. The Bayes factor returned was 0.31, which is evidence for the null hypothesis of no difference between the two conditions.…”

Section: Minimum Pupil Diametermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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. If sameresponse trials produced slower responses than non-colorword neutral trials, it would be evidence of semantic interference; alternatively, if same-response trials produced faster responses than non-color-word neutral trials, it would be evidence of response facilitation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although Hasshim and Parris (2014) did find evidence for no difference between nonresponse and neutral trials in their first experiment, the Bayes factor for the second experiment was only 0.58, which suggests that the null results in that experiment might have been due to the data being too insensitive to detect the effect (Dienes, 2014). In the present study, we investigated whether S-S incompatibility/semantic interference effects during the Stroop task could be revealed using a new, more sensitive measure of performance and an online measure of effort expenditure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Self Cite

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Saccadic Latenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Minimum Pupil Diametermentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Flanker interference at both stimulus and response levels decreases with age

Di Chiaro,

Holmes

2024

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When trying to identify the colour of a target, people’s performance is impaired by nearby distractors of different colours. It is controversial whether these interference effects originate from competing stimuli, competing responses or from both simultaneously. These interference effects may also differ depending on a person’s age. Comparisons between studies show mixed results, while differences in experimental design and data analysis complicate the interpretation. In our study, we manipulated the relative proportions of congruent and incongruent trials with respect to both stimuli and responses. Considering this aspect, we asked whether people resolve stimulus and response interference differently at different ages. 92 children (6–14 years), 25 young adults (20–43 years) and 33 older adults (60–84 years) performed a coloured version of the Eriksen flanker task. Since reaction times and errors were correlated, inverse efficiency scores were used to address speed-accuracy trade-offs between groups. Absolute interference effects were used to measure relationships with age. The results showed first, unexpectedly, that response interference was comparable between stimulus- and response-balanced conditions. Second, performance at all ages was significantly influenced both by competing stimuli and responses. Most importantly, the size of interference effects decreased with age. These findings cast some doubt on the conclusions of previous studies, and raise further questions about how cognitive control is best measured across the lifespan.

show abstract

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

Parris

Hasshim

Wadsley

et al. 2021

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite instructions to ignore the irrelevant word in the Stroop task, it robustly influences the time it takes to identify the color, leading to performance decrements (interference) or enhancements (facilitation). The present review addresses two questions: (1) What levels of processing contribute to Stroop effects; and (2) Where does attentional selection occur? The methods that are used in the Stroop literature to measure the candidate varieties of interference and facilitation are critically evaluated and the processing levels that contribute to Stroop effects are discussed. It is concluded that the literature does not provide clear evidence for a distinction between conflicting and facilitating representations at phonological, semantic and response levels (together referred to as informational conflict), because the methods do not currently permit their isolated measurement. In contrast, it is argued that the evidence for task conflict as being distinct from informational conflict is strong and, thus, that there are at least two loci of attentional selection in the Stroop task. Evidence suggests that task conflict occurs earlier, has a different developmental trajectory and is independently controlled which supports the notion of a separate mechanism of attentional selection. The modifying effects of response modes and evidence for Stroop effects at the level of response execution are also discussed. It is argued that multiple studies claiming to have distinguished response and semantic conflict have not done so unambiguously and that models of Stroop task performance need to be modified to more effectively account for the loci of Stroop effects.

show abstract

Two-to-one color-response mapping and the presence of semantic conflict in the Stroop task

Cited by 27 publications

References 34 publications

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

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

Flanker interference at both stimulus and response levels decreases with age

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About