An Optimal Viewing Position Effect in the Stroop Task When Only One Letter Is the Color Carrier
Abstract
Abstract. Coloring only a single letter in the Stroop task can result in a reduction or elimination of Stroop interference. The present experiments were designed to test whether this modulation of Stroop interference occurs at all letter positions. Specifically, we investigated whether Stroop interference was reduced when the colored letter occupied the optimal viewing position (OVP). The experiments show that Stroop interference is not reduced at the OVP (Experiment 1) and that Stroop interference at the OVP is significantly greater than at other letter positions (Experiments 1 and 2). This finding has important theoretical and methodological consequences for studies of automatic processing in visual word recognition.
References
(2004). A rational look at the emotional Stroop phenomenon: A generic slowdown, not a Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 323– 338
(1998). Mapping symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on Stroop-like tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 427– 437
(2001). The myth of ballistic processing: Evidence from Stroop's paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 324– 330
(1999). What kind of attention modulates the Stroop effect?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 99– 104
(1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 221– 225
(2002). Automaticity in reading and the Stroop task: Testing the limits of involuntary word processing. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 515– 543
(2005). Visual constraints in written word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing-position effect. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 216– 228
(1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332– 361
(2002). Stroop interference effects in partially colored Stroop words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 536– 541
(2002). What determines the eyes' landing position in words?. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 1130– 1144
(1978). The visual characteristics of words. Scientific American, 238, 122– 130
(1996). How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: A comparison of French and Arabic. Brain and Language, 53, 351– 368
(1992). Involuntary covert attention is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030– 44
(2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
(1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 431– 439
(1967). Computational analysis of present day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
(1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychonomic Bulletin, 109, 163– 203
(2004). Single letter coloring and spatial cueing eliminates a semantic contribution to the Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 458– 462
(2000). Stroop interference and negative priming: Problems with inferences from null results. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 499– 503
(2001). Naming the color of a word: Is it responses or task sets that compete?. Memory and Cognition, 29, 137– 151
(2000). The role of early perceptual learning in reading. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 83–
(1981). The convenient viewing position hypothesis. In D.F. Fisher, R.A. Monty, & J.W. Senders (Eds.), Eye movements: Cognition and visual perception(pp. 289-298). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1987). Eye movement strategy and tactics in word recognition and reading. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading(pp. 363-383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1992). Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition - a challenge to current theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 185– 197
(1984). Convenient fixation location within isolated words of different length and structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 10, 250– 257
(2002). The Stroop effect and automaticity in visual word recognition. Poster presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Kansas, USA.
(1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R.L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1979). Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words. Perception, 8, 21– 30
(1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14, 191– 201
(1986). Mindless reading revisited: Eye movements during reading and scanning are different. Perception and Psychophysics, 58, 734– 747
(1975). The interference of various word parts on color naming in the Stroop test. Perception and Psychophysics, 18, 191– 193
(2003). Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 133– 151
(1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97– 136
(1996). Unintentional word reading via the phonological route: The Stroop effect with cross-script homophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 336– 349
(1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory and Cognition, 13, 304– 319
