Why is naming longer than reading?

Fraisse, Paul

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90043-2

Cited by 122 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These data replicate the phenomenon that reading words is faster than naming drawings of the corresponding objects (Fraisse, 1969;Potter & Faulconer, 1975). The data also reproduce the result that word-frequency effects for word pronunciation tend to be smaller than frequency effects in the lexical decision task (e.g., as in Experiment 2).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Accessing lexical memory: The transfer of word repetition effects across task and modality

1979

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Accessing lexical memory: The transfer of word repetition effects across task and modality

1979

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Picture-Word Interference Task Cattell (1886) emphasized the naming of colors and pictures being slower than the reading aloud of corresponding words (see also Fraisse, 1969). So it is surprising that the picture-word interference task did not appear until after Dyer's (1973c) review.…”

Section: Response Modality: Oral Versus Manual)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.

MacLeod

1991

Psychological Bulletin

4,772

165

3,607

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on interference in the Stroop Color-Word Task, covering over 50 years and some 400 studies, is organized and reviewed. In so doing, a set ofl 8 reliable empirical findings is isolated that must be captured by any successful theory of the Stroop effect. Existing theoretical positions are summarized and evaluated in view of this critical evidence and the 2 major candidate theories--relative speed of processing and automaticity of reading--are found to be wanting. It is concluded that recent theories placing the explanatory weight on parallel processing of the irrelevant and the relevant dimensions are likely to be more successful than are earlier theories attempting to locate a single bottleneck in attention.In 1935, J. R. Stroop published his landmark article on attention and interference, an article more influential now than it was then. Why has the Stroop task continued to fascinate us? Perhaps the task is seen as tapping into the primitive operations of cognition, offering clues to the fundamental process of attention. Perhaps the robustness of the phenomenon provides a special challenge to decipher. Together these are powerful attractions in a field of complex phenomena where the most subtie variation may exert a dramatic effect.In writing this article, I have two primary intentions. The first is to create a taxonomy of the empirical work on the Stroop task and its analogs. At least 70% of the more than 700 Strooprelated articles in the literature have been published since the reviews by Dyer (1973c) and Jensen and Rohwer (1966). Furthermore, Dyer's theoretical framework now seems in need of reconsideration, so that his review no longer provides the optimal organization. The second aim, then, is to survey existing theories, showing the critical weaknesses in the standard explanations and dispelling some myths that have arisen. I argue for a new theoretical framework for the Stroop effect, informed by contemporary cognitive psychology. This framework is more comprehensive than many earlier experiment-specific hypotheses, and suggests directions in which future research might profitably proceed.

show abstract

“…Called "speed-ofprocessing models" by Macleod (1991; also called "horse-race models" by Dunbar & Macleod, 1984), this view states that the Stroop asymmetry is attributable to the inherently faster speed with which humans process and respond to words as opposed to colors (Dyer, 1973;Fraisse, 1969;Keele, 1972;Morton & Chambers, 1973;Posner & Snyder, 1975;Treisman, 1969;see Macleod, 1991, for a review). The idea is that asymmetry in the speed of processing leads to slowed color naming because of a competition at a single-channel response stage between responses to words, which are available first, and responses to colors, which are the basis of the classification.…”

Section: Relation To Speed-of-processing Models: Previous Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The framework of dimensional interaction was used to test the hypothesis that the Stroop effect is partially rooted in mismatches in baseline discriminability, with stimulus differences along the word dimension typically exceeding stimulus differences along the color dimension. Subjects made speeded classifications, with either keypresses or vocalizations, of either words or colors. Stroop congruity and Garner interference were measured under conditions in which discriminabilities were (l) matched (Experiments 1 and 4), (2) mismatched in favor of colors (Experiment 2), or (3) mismatched in favor of words (Experiment 3). When matched, colors and words appeared separable, with small interactive effects being reduced or eliminated through practice. When mismatched, asymmetric Stroop and Garner effects emerged, with the more discriminable dimension disrupting classification of the less discriminable dimension. Asymmetric effects were obtained in both response modes, and were not alleviated by practice. We conclude that (1) the Stroop effect is an optional effect, and (2) unequal discriminability causes a mandatory failure of selective attention.In his comprehensive review, MacLeod (1991) noted that, since the seminal paper by Stroop in 1935, over 700 articles have explored some aspect of the phenomenon that Stroop discovered. Stroop's study is especially intriguing because of the peculiar asymmetry that characterized his subjects' performance: When they read color words printed in various colors, irrelevant color had no effect on performance; however, when they named the colors of these words, the irrelevant words hindered performance significantly. This asymmetry is known universally as the Stroop effect. Much is now known about how this effect relates to a host of experimental variables. Some ofthese relations are discussed below. Despite an enormous amount of empirical study, however, the wider theoretical implications of Stroop's work have largely eluded researchers. In the present study, we view the Stroop effect in a different light-namely, that of research and theory on dimensional interaction. This approach permits us to fit the Stroop effect comfortably into the broader framework of what factors cause selective attention to succeed or fail. Our efforts yield new insights into the nature of the Stroop effect, on the one hand, and the nature of selective attention, on the other. Selective Attention and Dimensional InteractionThe questions of whether and how humans integrate the separate sources of information in their environment have enjoyed considerable research focus within cognitive psychology. One reason is that these issues have great bearing on the nature of many fundamental cognitive processes, including those in perception (see, e.g., Ashby

show abstract

Why is naming longer than reading?

Cited by 122 publications

References 11 publications

Accessing lexical memory: The transfer of word repetition effects across task and modality

Accessing lexical memory: The transfer of word repetition effects across task and modality

Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.

Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About