Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals.

TLDR: The somewhat obvious conclusion of this paper is that these processes are more successfully integrated within multi-stage accounts than within the historically favored single-stage response competition accounts that still dominate current psychological research and practice.

About: This article is published in Acta Psychologica.The article was published on 2017-04-11 and is currently open access. It has received 25 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Stroop Paradigm & Stroop effect.

Figures

Figure 1. The subtractive logic of the extended semantic Stroop interference (see e.g., Augustinova &

Table 1 Mean correct response times (in milliseconds), standard errors (in parentheses), and percentages of errors observed in Experiments 1 and 2 as a function of Stimulus-type and RSI. Experiment 1

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Further investigation of distinct components of stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals" ?

This paper showed that Stroop interference is a more complex phenomenon that goes beyond a single ( i.e., response ) conflict depicted above. 

Q2. What is the architecture of the model?

The architecture of the model is a hierarchical system that distinguishes separate featural, sublexical (smaller than words), and lexical and semantic (whole-word) levels of processing that take place in cascade. 

Q3. What is the effect of short RSIs on the distinct components of Stroop interference?

The influence of Short Response-Stimulus Intervals on the distinct components of Stroop interferenceStroop interference is indeed traditionally considered to reflect cognitive control, withlower levels of Stroop interference reflecting greater control. 

Q4. What is the main lesson to be learned from the present paper?

perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the present paper is thatthe standard implementation of the Stroop paradigm, which contrasts mean coloridentification times for color-incongruent items (e.g., BLUEgreen) with some kind of colorneutral (e.g., DOGgreen / XXXgreen) or color-congruent (e.g., BLUEblue) baseline, should be abandoned in favor of a more fine-grained implementation such as the one used in the present paper. 

Q5. What was the main effect of RSI on the naming latencies?

This revealed that the specific contributions of task and semantic conflicts to overallStroop interference remained unaffected by variations in RSI. 

Q6. What is the reason for the decrease in magnitude of the Stroop interference observed with vocal responses?

contrary to the initial assumption of De Jong and colleagues, this decrease in magnitude is likely to be due to the reduced contribution of response conflict but not that of semantic conflict (see e.g.,7 

Q7. What is the significance of the RSI in the semantic paradigm?

Given that in the present experiment the authors failed to capture the distinct contribution of task conflict (i.e., a contribution that is independent of the semantic and response conflicts) to the overall Stroop interference observed in the semantic paradigm administered with manual responses, the extent to which a short RSI specifically reduces this type of conflict (Parris, 2014) remains an open issue. 

Q8. How large is the sample size in Stroop research?

given that with manual responses, the specific behavioralmanifestation of task conflict (but also of semantic conflict) is relatively small (see e.g., Augustinova, 2015; Sharma & McKenna, 1998), a larger sample size than is usually found in Stroop research might be of value in future empirical research (see e.g., Risko et al., 2006 for an example and Augustinova & Ferrand, 2014b for a discussion).