Stroop dilution revisited: evidence for domain-specific, limited-capacity processing.

Nine experiments show that in the context of Stroop dilution the extent to which flanking distractors are processed depends on the nature of the material at fixation. A Stroop effect is eliminated if a word or a nonword is colored and appears at fixation and the color word appears as a flanker. A Stroop effect is observed when the color carrier at fixation is from a different domain than the color word distractor (e.g., Arabic digits). It is argued that when the material at fixation is in the same domain as the color word distractor, the distractor is not processed. Taken together, these results implicate a role for material-specific, limited-capacity processing in the context of this variant of the Stroop paradigm.

[1]  T. L. Brown.  Attentional selection and word processing in Stroop and word search tasks: the role of selection for action. , 1996, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  J. Brožek.  Attention and Performance II. , 1971 .

[3]  D. Long,et al.  Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[4]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  M. Posner.  Foundations of cognitive science , 1989 .

[6]  M. Posner,et al.  Attention and cognitive control. , 1975 .

[7]  Allen Allport,et al.  Visual attention , 1989 .

[8]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  P L Yee,et al.  Individual differences in Stroop dilution: tests of the attention-capture hypothesis. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  O Manor,et al.  DEVELOPMENTAL DYSCALCULIA: PREVALENCE AND DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES , 1996 .

[11]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  A Solution to the Effect of Sample Size on Outlier Elimination , 1994 .

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

[13]  Holger Mitterer,et al.  Stroop dilution but not word-processing dilution: evidence for attention capture , 2003, Psychological research.

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

[15]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  R. Engle,et al.  Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Basic processes in reading : visual word recognition , 1993 .

[18]  James T. Townsend,et al.  The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes , 1983 .

[19]  Saul Sternberg,et al.  The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method , 1969 .

[20]  N Lavie,et al.  The role of perceptual load in negative priming. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  J. Stroop.  Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

[22]  D. Besner,et al.  Semantic processing in visual word recognition: Activation blocking and domain specificity , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  K. Rayner,et al.  Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. , 1998 .

[24]  Alan S. Brown,et al.  Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium , 1976 .