Article Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "pk": 32216,
    "title": "A New Model for the Stroop Effect",
    "subtitle": null,
    "abstract": "In general, the Stroop effect demonstrates our inability to ignore meaningful but irrelevant information.\nTypically, this effect is explained in terms of speed of processing. For instance, in the color-word\nStroop task, words are considered to be processed faster than colors, therefore, the word, which is a\nvalid response, either facilitates or interferes with naming the color. In order to examine which\ndimension (i.e., color or word) is processed faster in the Stroop task, researchers have varied the\nstimulus onset asynchrony between the color and word dimensions. This research suggests that\nm a x i m u m interference and facilitation occur when the t w o dimensions are presented within 1 0 0 m s e c\nof each other. Interestingly, Stroop interference can be found w h e n the word precedes the color and\nwhen the color precedes the word. Although thesefindings d o not support the typical explanation of\nStroop processing described above, this research was conducted using non-integrated color-word\nstimuli. A non-integrated color-word stimulus consists of a color word with a color block. An\nintegrated color-word stimulus is a color word printed in a color. The processing of non-integrated\nstimuli m a y not be the s a m e as the processing of integrated stimuli. In one experiment, integrated\ncolor-word stimuli were presented for varying durations (40 to 1 0 0 0 m s e c ) and then masked. Stimuli\nconsisted of color congruent, color incongruent, and color neutral words (e.g., B O O K , CHAIR, LADDER,\nT O P ) . Results show that color incongruent stimuli produces significantly longer RTs than color\ncongruent words at the shortest durations of 4 0 and 6 0 msec. Therefore, the Stroop effect appears to\noccur only w h e n processing time is limited. A second study attempted to replicate these findings in the\nparafovea. However, parafoveal presentation of integrated color-word stimuli failed to produce Stroop\ninterference. In order to assess whether the lack of Stroop interference was due to spatially\ndistributing attention over an area which limited attentional resources available to a given stimulus or\ndue to the retinal location of the stimulus (i.e., due to acuity issues, etc.), a third study was conducted\nin which the location of the color-word stimulus was validly cued on 6 7 % of the trials. The results\ns h o w Stroop interference for validly cued locations. Therefore, failure to find Stroop interference in\nthe second experiment was due to the spreading of attention. These three experiments suggest that\nStroop interference occurs during the initial stages of processing and. is depends upon attention\nresources. In a fourth study, integrated color-word stimuli were presented in the fovea. Stimuli\nconsisted of color words and nonwords. Subjects were asked to respond either word or nonword\ninstead of responding to the color. Results show that color congruent stimuli were identified as words\nsignificantly faster than color incongruent words and nonwords. Therefore, color enhanced word\nprocessing. Again, thisfindingquestions the relative speed of processing account of Stroop processing.\nFinally, a fourth experiment used a color-color version of the Stroop task. Subjects were presented\nt w o blocks of color. The two blocks were either the s a m e color (congruent) or different colors\n(incongruent). Single blocks of color were presented as the neutral condition. The results show that\nincongruent color blocks produce Stroop interference. This finding demonstrates Stroop interference\nwith information within the s a m e domain (color) instead of two separate domains (color and word).\nThus, these findingssuggest that the Stroop effect not only occurs during the initial stages of\nprocessing and depends on attentional resources but that information within the s a m e domain as the\ntarget dimension can cause interference and facilitation. A n e w model for Stroop processing is\npresented to accommodate these findings. Implications for neural network accounts of the Stroop\neffect are also discussed.",
    "language": "eng",
    "license": {
        "name": "",
        "short_name": "",
        "text": null,
        "url": ""
    },
    "keywords": [],
    "section": "Society Member Abstracts",
    "is_remote": true,
    "remote_url": "https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5n99v5b4",
    "frozenauthors": [
        {
            "first_name": "Christopher",
            "middle_name": "",
            "last_name": "Koch",
            "name_suffix": "",
            "institution": "",
            "department": ""
        }
    ],
    "date_submitted": null,
    "date_accepted": null,
    "date_published": "1996-01-02T00:00:00+06:00",
    "render_galley": null,
    "galleys": [
        {
            "label": "PDF",
            "type": "pdf",
            "path": "https://journalpub.escholarship.org/cognitivesciencesociety/article/32216/galley/23281/download/"
        }
    ]
}