Electrophysiologic indices of Stroop and Garner interference reveal linguistic influences on auditory and visual processing.

The purpose of this study was to examine linguistic influences on the auditory and visual processing of words both behaviorally and electrophysiologically. Our task yielded measures of the effect of irrelevant semantic content (Stroop interference) and of the effect of irrelevant linguistic variability (Garner interference). The behavioral results allow us to assess whether the linguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions of verbal stimuli are processed dependently or independently. The electrophysiologic results allow us to determine where any processing interactions are arising, particularly regarding perceptual versus postperceptual underpinnings, and to evaluate the similarity and dissimilarity between the two interference effects. Results show pronounced Stroop and Garner interference both behaviorally and electrophysiologically, indicating linguistic influences on auditory and visual processing. Subjects could not ignore the irrelevant linguistic dimension and attend selectively to the physical dimension of either spoken or written words. The results indicate that the physical and linguistic dimensions of words are not processed independently. With regard to the stage of processing underlying the interference effects, our results suggest that both Stroop and Garner interference involve multiple stages of processing. The two interference effects are not duplicate measures, however, and different electrophysiologic signatures were observed. Stroop interference is characterized by perceptual and postperceptual components. Similar electrophysiologic patterns within the auditory and visual modalities suggest that each interference effect is tapping similar processes for spoken and written stimuli.

[1]  F. Plum.  Handbook of Physiology. , 1960 .

[2]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[3]  J. Jerger,et al.  Estrogen influences auditory brainstem responses during the normal menstrual cycle , 1992, Hearing Research.

[4]  Jules M. Pieters,et al.  Ear asymmetry in an auditory Spatial Stroop Task as a Function of Handedness , 1981, Cortex.

[5]  Shor Re.  An auditory analog of the Stroop Test. , 1975 .

[6]  W. Lambert,et al.  Bilingual interdependencies in auditory perception , 1972 .

[7]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  E J Green,et al.  Interference effects in an auditory Stroop task: congruence and correspondence. , 1983, Acta psychologica.

[9]  C Speaks,et al.  A new approach to speech audiometry. , 1968, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[10]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. , 1977, Science.

[11]  J. R. Pomerantz.  Global and local precedence: selective attention in form and motion perception. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  L. Marks,et al.  Processes underlying dimensional interactions: Correspondences between linguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[13]  D. Brandee,et al.  EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS OF THE BRAIN AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES: APPROACHES AND APPLICATIONS , 1986 .

[14]  F. Lille,et al.  Potentiels évoqués et âge: vieillissement différentiel selon le sexe? , 1991, Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[16]  John F. Brandt,et al.  An auditory Stroop effect for pitch, loudness, and time , 1989, Brain and Language.

[17]  James W. Hall.  Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses , 1991 .

[18]  R. Knight.  Aging decreases auditory event-related potentials to unexpected stimuli in humans , 1987, Neurobiology of Aging.

[19]  M. Annett.  A classification of hand preference by association analysis. , 1970, British journal of psychology.

[20]  T W Picton,et al.  The effects of age on human event-related potentials. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

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

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

[23]  C. Shagass,et al.  Are gender differences in schizophrenia reflected in brain event-related potentials? , 1990, Schizophrenia bulletin.

[24]  E Donchin,et al.  A metric for thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. , 1981, Science.

[25]  Event-related potentials in a lexical stroop task. , 1991, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[26]  S. Folstein,et al.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. , 1975, Journal of psychiatric research.

[27]  H. Jasper,et al.  The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1999, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[28]  R. Cowie,et al.  The perception of structure , 1997 .

[29]  R. Shor.  An auditory analog of the Stroop Test. , 1975, The Journal of general psychology.

[30]  B. Kopell,et al.  The Stroop effect: brain potentials localize the source of interference. , 1981, Science.

[31]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  A developmental study of the auditory stroop effect , 1988, Brain and Language.

[32]  D. Regan,et al.  Human brain electrophysiology , 1989 .

[33]  C J Aine,et al.  Event‐Related Potentials to Stroop Stimuli , 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Peter D. Eimas,et al.  Perspectives on the study of speech , 1981 .

[35]  K. Meador,et al.  Auditory P3 correlates of phonemic and semantic processing. , 1987, The International journal of neuroscience.

[36]  M. Russell Harter,et al.  Effects of attention and arousal on visually evoked cortical potentials and reaction time in man , 1969 .

[37]  P. Barber,et al.  An auditory Stroop effect with judgments of speaker gender , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[38]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Electrical Signs of Selective Attention in the Human Brain , 1973, Science.

[39]  G G Celesia,et al.  Effects of aging on visual evoked responses. , 1977, Archives of neurology.

[40]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Parallel processing of auditory and phonetic information in speech discrimination , 1974 .

[41]  C C Wood,et al.  Auditory and phonetic levels of processing in speech perception: neurophysiological and information-processing analyses. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  D. Regan.  Human brain electrophysiology: Evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine , 1989 .

[43]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  Attention and object perception. , 1989 .

[44]  D. Pearson,et al.  Childhood hearing impairment: auditory and linguistic interactions during multidimensional speech processing. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[45]  Susan Jerger,et al.  Developmental trends in the interaction between auditory and linguistic processing , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[46]  W. R. Garner.  The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[47]  J. Stein.  Progress in clinical neurophysiology Vol. 4. Cerebral motor control in man: Long loop mechanisms. Edited by J. E. Desmedt. S. Karger, Basel, 1979, 394 pp. $70.75 , 1980, Neuropsychologia.

[48]  G. Sambataro,et al.  Comparative study of middle-latency responses and auditory brainstem responses in elderly subjects. , 1989, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[49]  E. Donchin,et al.  On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[50]  R. Wilkinson,et al.  Auditory evoked response and reaction time. , 1967, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[51]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Chapter 2 – ATTENTION: THE PROCESSING OF MULTIPLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION* , 1974 .

[52]  S. Jerger,et al.  Linguistic Influences on the Auditory Processing of Speech by Children with Normal Hearing or Hearing Impairment , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[53]  S. Jerger,et al.  Auditory stroop effects in children with hearing impairment. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[54]  L. Kempe.  Handbook of Physiology. Section I. The Nervous System , 1982 .

[55]  Gillian Cohen,et al.  Hemisphere differences in an auditory Stroop test , 1975 .

[56]  Parietal processing of affect and cognition: Cerebral organization in strongly lateralized left-handed subjects , 1989, Biological Psychology.

[57]  J Jerger,et al.  Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. , 1970, Archives of otolaryngology.

[58]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  Asymmetric integrality with dimensions of visual pattern , 1975 .

[59]  J L Mller.  Interactions in processing segmental and suprasegmental features of speech. , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[60]  G R Marsh,et al.  Changes in event related potentials during processing of Stroop stimuli. , 1979, The International journal of neuroscience.

[61]  Soledad Ballesteros,et al.  Cognitive Approaches to Human Perception , 1993 .

[62]  M E Shenton,et al.  Reversed temporal region asymmetries of P300 topography in left- and right-handed schizophrenic subjects. , 1992, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[63]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  The temporal structure of spoken language understanding , 1980, Cognition.

[64]  K. Kirsner,et al.  Language processing in partial English-Japanese bilinguals: evidence from Stroop-test results. , 1983, The International journal of neuroscience.