P300 and response time from a manual Stroop task

OBJECTIVES Manual response time (RT) and P300 event-related potential (ERP) measures were recorded in a Stroop color naming task to determine if previous results with vocal responses would be obtained using an arbitrary stimulus-response (S-R) mapping. METHODS Subjects (n = 32) were instructed to respond to the display color of a word but to ignore its meaning. Display color was congruent, neutral, or incongruent with word meaning. RESULTS Stroop facilitation and interference effects were observed, as RT was shortest in the congruent condition, intermediate in the neutral condition, and longest in the incongruent condition. In contrast, P300 latency did not vary across color/word congruence conditions, suggesting that the RT difference between congruence conditions originated after stimulus evaluation. CONCLUSIONS These manual RT/P300 findings support the view that Stroop interference and facilitation originate from response competition between the relevant and irrelevant stimulus attributes. By employing an arbitrary mapping of color words onto buttons, the present results indicate that the disparate effects of Stroop stimuli on RT and P300 latency do not depend on the nature of the S-R translation.

[1]  E. Donchin,et al.  Performance of concurrent tasks: a psychophysiological analysis of the reciprocity of information-processing resources. , 1983, Science.

[2]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Strategies in the color-word Stroop task , 1984 .

[3]  Michael D. Rugg,et al.  Event-related potentials and the recollection of low and high frequency words , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  Effects of motor and verbal practice on the Stroop task. , 1980, Perceptual and motor skills.

[5]  W. Glaser,et al.  Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  E Donchin,et al.  P300 and the word frequency effect. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

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

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

[10]  R. Davis,et al.  The role of hemispheric specialization in the analysis of Stroop stimuli. , 1974, Acta psychologica.

[11]  R. Ragot,et al.  Perceptual and motor space representation: an event-related potential study. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[12]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[13]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. , 1991 .

[14]  J. Hohnsbein,et al.  Effects of choice complexity on different subcomponents of the late positive complex of the event-related potential. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[15]  Emanuel Donchin,et al.  The P300 component of the event-related brain potential as an index of information processing , 1982, Biological Psychology.

[16]  John Morton,et al.  Selective Attention to Words and Colours , 1973 .

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

[18]  R. H. Phaf,et al.  SLAM: A connectionist model for attention in visual selection tasks , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

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

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

[21]  E. Donchin.  Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.

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

[23]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. , 1990, Psychological review.

[24]  B. Renault,et al.  P300 and S-R compatibility: a reply to Magliero et al. , 1985, Psychophysiology.

[25]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  Assessing the development of automatic processing: An application of dual-task and event-related brain potential methodologies , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[26]  J Hohnsbein,et al.  Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. I. Simple and choice reaction tasks. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

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

[29]  F Rösler,et al.  When perceptual or motor sets are changed: effects of updating demands on structure and energy of P300. , 1985, Acta psychologica.

[30]  A Pfefferbaum,et al.  Manipulation of P3 latency: speed vs. accuracy instructions. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[31]  Stuart T. Klapp,et al.  Automatizing Alphabet Arithmetic : II . Are There Practice Effects After Automaticity Is Achieved ? , 1991 .

[32]  Paul Fraisse,et al.  Why is naming longer than reading , 1969 .

[33]  M. Falkenstein,et al.  Late visual and auditory ERP components and choice reaction time , 1993, Biological Psychology.

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

[35]  J. E. McDonald,et al.  Time course of inhibition in color-response and word-response versions of the Stroop task. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  Richard Ragot,et al.  P300, as a function of S—R compatibility and motor programming , 1981, Biological Psychology.

[37]  A Pfefferbaum,et al.  Apparent response incompatibility effects on P3 latency depend on the task. , 1986, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

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

[40]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

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

[43]  C. Frith,et al.  Routes to action in reaction time tasks , 1986, Psychological research.

[44]  G. M. Redding,et al.  Stroop Effect: Interference and Facilitation with Verbal and Manual Responses , 1977, Perceptual and motor skills.

[45]  R. Verleger.  On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. , 1997, Psychophysiology.

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