Different time courses of Stroop and Garner effects in perception — An Event-Related Potentials Study

Visual integration between target and irrelevant features leads to effects of irrelevant feature congruency (Stroop) or variation (Garner) on target classification performance. Presenting closed geometrical shapes as stimuli, we obtained Stroop and Garner effects of one part of their contour on another, in response times and error rates. The correlates of these effects in brain activity were observed in event-related potentials (ERP). Stroop effects occurred in ERP amplitude of the N1 and N2 components, starting about 170 ms after stimulus onset; Garner effects occurred in amplitude of the rising part of the P3 component, starting about 330 ms after stimulus onset. A subsequent point-wise analysis of Stroop and Garner effects in ERP showed that they belong to different, cascaded processing stages. The difference in time course between Stroop and Garner effects in ERP is in accordance with the view that both are produced by different mechanisms, the former sensitive to interference within presentations and the latter sensitive to interference between presentations. The brief interval of 330-370 ms after stimulus onset when these two mechanisms overlap may correspond to the central processing bottleneck, responsible for the combinations of Stroop and Garner effects generally found in response times.

[1]  J. R. Mounts,et al.  Competition for representation is mediated by relative attentional salience. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[2]  Daniel Algom,et al.  The stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[3]  C Alain,et al.  Event-related neural activity associated with the Stroop task. , 1999, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[5]  M. Mcmahon,et al.  The origin of the oblique effect examined with pattern adaptation and masking. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[6]  R. Melara,et al.  Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice , 1993, Memory & cognition.

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

[8]  T. Lachmann,et al.  Different letter-processing strategies in diagnostic subgroups of developmental dyslexia , 2008, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[9]  E. Vogel,et al.  Capacity limit of visual short-term memory in human posterior parietal cortex , 2004 .

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

[11]  Thomas F Münte,et al.  Temporal dynamics of early perceptual processing , 1998, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[12]  John Polich,et al.  P300 and response time from a manual Stroop task , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[13]  S. Appelle.  Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: the "oblique effect" in man and animals. , 1972, Psychological bulletin.

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

[15]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Stimulus modality, perceptual overlap, and the go/no-go N2. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[16]  A. Henik,et al.  The importance of irrelevant-dimension variability in the Stroop flanker task , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

[19]  Stephen E. Palmer,et al.  Perception of partly occluded objects: A microgenetic analysis. , 1992 .

[20]  J. Polich.  Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[21]  D. Algom,et al.  The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: The Stroop effect revisited , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[22]  T. Mexia,et al.  Author ' s personal copy , 2009 .

[23]  Jonathan R. Folstein,et al.  Multidimensional rule, unidimensional rule, and similarity strategies in categorization: event-related brain potential correlates. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[25]  T. Egner,et al.  Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[26]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing , 1970 .

[27]  G Mulder,et al.  Event-related potentials during memory search and selective attention to letter size and conjunctions of letter size and color. , 1989, Psychophysiology.

[28]  E. Yund,et al.  An ERP study of the global precedence effect: the role of spatial frequency , 2003, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[30]  C. Spence,et al.  The Handbook of Multisensory Processing , 2004 .

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

[32]  Allen Azizian,et al.  Beware misleading cues: perceptual similarity modulates the N2/P3 complex. , 2006, Psychophysiology.

[33]  G. Mangun.  Neural mechanisms of visual selective attention. , 1995, Psychophysiology.

[34]  A. Weiss.  Psychology, From the Standpoint of the Behaviorist. , 1920 .

[35]  Philip T Quinlan,et al.  Garner and congruence effects in the speeded classification of bimodal signals. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  G Mulder,et al.  Attention to color: an analysis of selection, controlled search, and motor activation, using event-related potentials. , 1989, Psychophysiology.

[37]  Jonathan R. Folstein,et al.  Novelty and conflict in the categorization of complex stimuli. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[38]  A Zani,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence of a perceptual precedence of global vs. local visual information. , 1998, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[39]  C. Leeuwen,et al.  Stroop can occur without Garner interference: Strategic and mandatory influences in multidimensional stimuli , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  M M Mesulam,et al.  An electrophysiological index of stimulus unfamiliarity. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[41]  W. R. Garner.  Facilitation and interference with a separable redundant dimension in stimulus comparison , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Activation Timecourse of Ventral Visual Stream Object-recognition Areas: High Density Electrical Mapping of Perceptual Closure Processes , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[44]  D. Algom,et al.  Stroop and Garner effects in and out of Posner's beam: reconciling two conceptions of selective attention. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  Stefan Debener,et al.  Size matters: effects of stimulus size, duration and eccentricity on the visual gamma-band response , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[46]  J R Pomerantz,et al.  Electrophysiologic indices of Stroop and Garner interference reveal linguistic influences on auditory and visual processing. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[47]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[48]  Thomas Lachmann,et al.  Negative congruence effects in letter and pseudo-letter recognition: the role of similarity and response conflict , 2004, Cognitive Processing.

[49]  D. Algom,et al.  Driven by information: a tectonic theory of Stroop effects. , 2003, Psychological review.

[50]  Erwin Hennighausen,et al.  N200 in the Eriksen-Task: Inhibitory Executive Processes? , 2000 .

[51]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  The Role of the Medial Frontal Cortex in Cognitive Control , 2004, Science.

[52]  Bruce F. Pennington,et al.  What do double dissociations prove? , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[53]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  Perception of structure: An overview. , 1991 .

[54]  H. Mayberg,et al.  An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[55]  J. Jonides,et al.  Overlapping mechanisms of attention and spatial working memory , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[56]  Jonathan R. Folstein,et al.  Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

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

[58]  Stephen McAdams,et al.  Interactive processing of timbre dimensions: An exploration with event-related potentials , 2008 .

[59]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Interaction of stimulus dimensions in concept and choice processes , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[60]  S. Hochstein,et al.  View from the Top Hierarchies and Reverse Hierarchies in the Visual System , 2002, Neuron.

[61]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[62]  A. Cohen,et al.  Response selection processes for conjunctive targets. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[64]  Thomas Lachmann,et al.  Negative and positive congruence effects in letters and shapes , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[65]  A. Treisman.  Search, similarity, and integration of features between and within dimensions. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[66]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[67]  A. Kok.  On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[68]  A. Buchner,et al.  ERP correlates of auditory negative priming , 2003, Cognition.

[69]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence for Early Interaction between Talker and Linguistic Information during Speech Perception , 2006 .

[70]  J. Lannou,et al.  The Stroop's test evokes a negative brain potential, the N400. , 1997, The International journal of neuroscience.

[71]  E. Vogel,et al.  The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[72]  W. Klimesch,et al.  P1 and traveling alpha waves: evidence for evoked oscillations. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[73]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Anterior Cingulate Conflict Monitoring and Adjustments in Control , 2004, Science.

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

[75]  J. H. Flowers,et al.  Priming effects in perceptual classification , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

[78]  J. Jonides,et al.  Interference resolution: Insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging tasks , 2007, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.