Mapping symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on Stroop-like tasks

Response compatibility effects were assessed with a Stroop-like task which involved arrow and word stimuli. The subjects were required to respond to one stimulus—an arrow (e.g., →) or a word (e.g.,left)—and ignore the other. It was shown that response compatibility played a significant role in generating Stroop-like interference. Robust interference effects were observed when the subjects responded manually to word stimuli (ignoring irrelevant arrows) and when they responded vocally to arrow stimuli (ignoring irrelevant words). Smaller interference effects were observed under response-compatible conditions, namely, responding manually to arrows and vocally to words. In the second experiment, within-dimension displays (e.g., arrow-arrow or word-word displays) yielded a pattern of interference that did not interact with response modality. These findings indicate that both stimulus-response compatibility effects and target-distractor similarity are crucial for understanding Stroop-like interference.

[1]  A. Shimamura.  Word comprehension and naming: an analysis of English and Japanese orthographies , 1987 .

[2]  Ronald E. Shor,et al.  The processing of conceptual information on spatial directions from pictorial and linguistic symbols , 1970 .

[3]  Asher Cohen,et al.  Perceptual Dimensional Constraints in Response Selection Processes , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  A. Greenwald,et al.  On doing two things at once: time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective , 1990 .

[6]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[7]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[8]  Naming, Reading, and Executing Directions. , 1975 .

[9]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus–response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. , 1996 .

[10]  R. Proctor,et al.  The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  Dale S. Klopfer,et al.  Stroop Interference and Color-Word Similarity , 1996 .

[12]  M. C. Smith,et al.  Tracing the time course of picture--word processing. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  E. Fox.  Stimulus-response compatibility as a determinant of interference in a Stroop-like task , 1992 .

[14]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Controlling Stroop interference: Evidence from a bilingual task. , 1990 .

[15]  Colin M. Macleod.  Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  F N Dyer,et al.  The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the stlldy of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[17]  L. McClain,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  S. R. Palef,et al.  Judging pictorial and linguistic aspects of space , 1978, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles , 1988 .

[20]  S. Keele.  Attention demands of memory retrieval. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  J. R. Simon.  The Effects of an Irrelevant Directional CUE on Human Information Processing , 1990 .

[22]  David LaBerge,et al.  Automatic Semantic Processing of Unattended Words. , 1979 .

[23]  M. Mascolo,et al.  Verbal coding and the elimination of Stroop interference in a matching task. , 1990, The American journal of psychology.

[24]  R. Shor,et al.  Symbol Processing Speed Differences and Symbol Interference Effects in a Variety of Concept Domains. , 1971, The Journal of general psychology.

[25]  A. Treisman,et al.  The Stroop Test: Selective Attention to Colours and Words , 1969, Nature.

[26]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  David R. Olson,et al.  Spatial and verbal rivalry in a Stroop-like task. , 1975 .

[28]  J. L. Warner,et al.  Response and encoding factors in “ignoring” irrelevant information , 1979 .

[29]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[30]  H. Egeth,et al.  Toward a translational model of Stroop interference , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[31]  P. Barber,et al.  Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Judging up and down. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  G. S. Klein,et al.  SEMANTIC POWER MEASURED THROUGH THE INTERFERENCE OF WORDS WITH COLOR-NAMING. , 1964, The American journal of psychology.