Unintentional word reading via the phonological route: The Stroop effect with cross-script homophones.

Tzelgov, Joseph; Henik, Avishai; Sneg, Rinat; Baruch, Oshrit

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.336

Cited by 67 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By itself, this deviating observation does not undermine the conclusions reached by the comparison of the congruent Fig. 3 Results of the parity judgment Stroop experiment with the incongruent level separated for response congruent and response incongruent distractors (Experiment 2) and the incongruent conditions; it just makes it di cult to know whether the interference e ect was due to inhibition in the incongruent condition or to facilitation in the congruent condition (Tzelgov, Henik, Sneg, & Baruch, 1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Are Arabic numerals processed as pictures in a Stroop interference task?

Fias¹,

Reynvoet²,

Brysbaert³

2001

Psychological Research

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a picture-word interference task, picture naming is interfered by an incongruent word, but word naming is hardly hindered by the presence of an incongruent picture. In this study, we investigated whether Arabic digits are processed more like pictures or like words. We report two experiments in which Arabic digits and verbal numerals were confronted in a Stroop task. Arabic digit naming is interfered by the presence of an incongruent verbal numeral, while naming the verbal numeral is not in¯uenced by the presence of an incongruent Arabic digit. In a second experiment, we excluded the hypothesis that the results are due to ignoring the Arabic digits: interferences from an incongruent distracter were similar for both notations in a semantic classi®cation task. It seems that an asemantic conversion for Arabic digits is too slow to in¯uence naming times, and that Arabic digit naming, like picture naming, is semantically mediated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Are Arabic numerals processed as pictures in a Stroop interference task?

Fias¹,

Reynvoet²,

Brysbaert³

2001

Psychological Research

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Still, these results are not entirely in line with the results from experiments in which subjects made a lexical decision to a target string following letter search on the prime, because in all of those experiments, the semantic priming effect was virtually eliminated. There are many possible accounts of this between-task difference, but here we will focus on the argument that the Stroop effect is quite sensitive to a constituent condition-namely, the presence of congruent trials (see, e.g., Lowe & Mitterer, 1982;Tzelgov, Henik, Sneg, & Baruch, 1996). The problem with including congruent trials is that they encourage subjects to read the irrelevant word (see …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These controls were chosen to match the incongruent stimuli on length and on the first two letters, given the repeated worry that a Stroop effect can result simply from the first two letters spelling a color word (see, e.g., Tzelgov et al, 1996).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The stroop effect and the myth of automaticity

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A widespread view in cognition is that once acquired through extensive practice, mental skills such as reading are automatic. Lexical and semantic analyses of single words are said to be uncontrollable in the sense that they cannot be prevented. Over the past 60 years, apparently convincing support for this assumption has come from hundreds of experiments in which skilled readers have processed an irrelevant word in the Stroop task despite explicit instructions not to, even when so doing would hurt color identification performance. This basic effect was replicated in two experiments, which also showed that a considerable amount of semantic processing is locally controlled by elements of the task. For example, simply coloring a single letter instead of the whole word eliminated the Stroop effect. This outcome flies in the face of any automaticity account in which specified processes cannot be prevented from being set in motion, but it is consistent with the venerable idea that mental set is a powerful determinant of performance. 221Many low-level human behaviors are automatic, in that a stimulus serves to elicit the behavior in the absence of conscious awareness or intention (e.g., an eye blink in response to a puff of air; the patellar reflex; the Babinski reflex), Learned behaviors such as reading are also widely argued to be automatic in a similar sense. For example, it is well established that identifying the color of an incongruent word (e.g., green letters spelling the word "red") is slower than identifying the color of a congruent word (e.g., green letters spelling the word "green"). This Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935) and its many variants have been explored empirically, theoretically, and computationally by cognitive and developmental psychologists, psycholinguists, neuropsychologists, and cognitive scientists in more than 500 papers over the past 60 years (see MacLeod's 1991 review). A core assumption of virtually all the theoretical accounts is that skilled readers process the irrelevant word without consciousness or intent. Reading the word is said to be automatic in the sense that readers cannot refrain from computing the meaning of the word despite explicit instructions not to do SO:I Reading is such an automatic process that it is difficult to inhibit and it will interfere with processing other information about the word.

show abstract

“…A study by Tzelgov, Henik, Sneg, and Baruch (1996) provides additional evidence that phonological processing takes place in parallel to orthographic processing. They presented Hebrew-English bilinguals with crossscript homophones as the stimuli in a Stroop task.…”

Section: Phonology In the Bilingual Stroop Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The parts were identical in design, with one important exception: All responses were in Japanese in the first part but were in English in the second part. Note that unlike the study by Tzelgov et al (1996), no cross-script homophones were employed. All the stimuli were words in the script in which they were written.…”

Section: Phonology In the Bilingual Stroop Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%