Stroop Interference and Facilitation Effects in Kinesthetic and Haptic Tasks

Stroop interference and facilitation effects were documented in the visual, auditory, olfactory, and gustatory modalities. This study extends the Stroop phenomena also for kinesthetic and haptic tasks. In a touch-enabled computer interface, participants touched and manipulated virtual objects (cylinders, cubes, and tiles), through a pen-like stylus, and identified their haptic qualities (weight, firmness, vibrations). Similarly, participants were stimulated with a mechanical force pushing their hands lightly towards a specific direction which they had to identify. While performing these identification tasks, participants were simultaneously presented with words or symbols that were congruent, neutral, or incongruent with the experienced kinesthetic/haptic sensations. Error rates and response times were affected in the following order: congruent < neutral < incongruent. As technologies advance into multisensory systems, engineers and designers can improve human-computer interactions by ensuring optimal congruence between all the inter- and intra-sensory elements in the display.

[1]  J. Windes,et al.  Reaction time for numerical coding and naming of numerals. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  L. E. Bourne,et al.  Cross-modality priming between odors and odor-congruent words. , 1999, The American journal of psychology.

[3]  Lutz Jäncke,et al.  Synaesthesia: When coloured sounds taste sweet , 2005, Nature.

[4]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Multisensory enhancement: gains in choice and in simple response times , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[5]  J R Simon,et al.  Effect of conflicting cues on information processing: the 'Stroop effect' vs. the 'Simon effect'. , 1990, Acta psychologica.

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

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

[8]  P. Walker,et al.  Stroop Interference Based on the Multimodal Correlates of Haptic Size and Auditory Pitch , 1985, Perception.

[9]  Tobias Egner,et al.  Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain , 2007, NeuroImage.

[10]  Xun Liu,et al.  Common and distinct neural substrates of attentional control in an integrated Simon and spatial Stroop task as assessed by event-related fMRI , 2004, NeuroImage.

[11]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Action for Perception: Manual Exploratory Movements for Haptically Processing Objects and Their Features , 1996 .

[12]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Handbook of Psychology: Experimental Psychology , 2003 .

[13]  C. Davis.  Touch , 1997, The Lancet.

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

[15]  Ken’ichi,et al.  The Auditory Stroop Interference and the Irrelevant Speech / Pitch Effect : Absolute-Pitch Listeners Can ' t Suppress Pitch Labeling MIYAZAKI , 2003 .

[16]  M Carrasco,et al.  Semantic component of a cross-modal Stroop-like task. , 1993, The American journal of psychology.

[17]  M HERSHENSON,et al.  Reaction time as a measure of intersensory facilitation. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[19]  R. Dolan,et al.  The Nose Smells What the Eye Sees Crossmodal Visual Facilitation of Human Olfactory Perception , 2003, Neuron.

[20]  Paul J. Laurienti,et al.  Semantic congruence is a critical factor in multisensory behavioral performance , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  E. C. Dalrymple-Alford.  Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task , 1972 .

[24]  S Smith,et al.  Stroop Interference Based on the Synaesthetic Qualities of Auditory Pitch , 1984, Perception.

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

[26]  S. Kornblum.  Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. , 1992 .

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

[28]  Nelson Cowan,et al.  The nature of cross-modal color-word interference effects , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  Avishai Henik,et al.  Is an ant larger than a lion? , 2002, Acta psychologica.

[30]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  A. Streri,et al.  Touching for knowing : cognitive psychology of haptic manual perception , 2003 .

[32]  A. Diederich,et al.  Bimodal and trimodal multisensory enhancement: Effects of stimulus onset and intensity on reaction time , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  M. Reiner,et al.  Sensory dominance in combinations of audio, visual and haptic stimuli , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[34]  Patricia J Brooks,et al.  Developmental change in the cross-modal Stroop effect , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[35]  Yvette Hatwell.  Chapter 1. Introduction: Touch and cognition , 2003 .

[36]  Ardi Roelofs,et al.  The visual-auditory color-word Stroop asymmetry and its time course , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[37]  E. C. Dalrymple-Alford,et al.  Examination of Some Aspects of the Stroop Color-Word Test , 1966, Perceptual and motor skills.

[38]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Reactions toward the source of stimulation. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[39]  N Cowan,et al.  Habituation to auditory distractors in a cross-modal, color-word interference task. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[40]  S. Langton,et al.  The Mutual Influence of Gaze and Head Orientation in the Analysis of Social Attention Direction , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[41]  J. Gibson.  The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems , 1967 .

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

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

[44]  Andrew M. Herbert,et al.  A Stroop analog task: Words versus facial expressions , 2010 .

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

[46]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Enhancement of response times to bi- and tri-modal sensory stimuli during active movements , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[47]  H Shimada,et al.  Effect of Auditory Presentation of Words on Color Naming: The Intermodal Stroop Effect , 1990, Perceptual and motor skills.

[48]  Cristiana Cavina-Pratesi,et al.  Redundant target effect and intersensory facilitation from visual-tactile interactions in simple reaction time , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[49]  Claire O'Malley,et al.  Actions speak no louder than words: Symmetrical cross-modal interference effects in the processing of verbal and gestural information. , 1996 .

[50]  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.