Abstract
Abstract. A long-standing debate in the Stroop literature concerns whether the way we respond to the color dimension determines how we process the irrelevant dimension, or whether word processing is purely stimulus driven. Models and findings in the Stroop literature differ in their predictions about how response modes (e.g., responding manually vs. vocally) affect how the irrelevant word is processed (i.e., phonologically, semantically) and the interference and facilitation that results, with some predicting qualitatively different Stroop effects. Here, we investigated whether response mode modifies phonological facilitation produced by the irrelevant word. In a fully within-subject design, we sought evidence for the use of a serial print-to-speech prelexical phonological processing route when using manual and vocal responses by testing for facilitating effects of phonological overlap between the irrelevant word and the color name at the initial and final phoneme positions. The results showed phoneme overlap leads to facilitation with both response modes, a result that is inconsistent with qualitative differences between the two response modes.
References
(2014). Automaticity of word reading: Evidence from the Semantic Stroop Paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 343–348.
(2019). The loci of Stroop interference and facilitation effects with manual and vocal responses. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1786. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01786
(2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
(1998). Unintentional reading: Can phonological computation be controlled? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 52, 35–43.
(2001). On a variant of Stroop’s paradigm: Which cognitions press your buttons? Memory & Cognition, 29, 903–904.
(2002). Why do non-color words interfere with color naming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1019–1038.
(2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.
(1999). A position-sensitive Stroop effect: Further evidence for a left-to-right component in print-to-speech conversion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 456–463.
(2011). Bayesian versus Orthodox statistics: Which side are you on? Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 6(3), 274–290.
(2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psycholology, 5, 781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781
(2016). How Bayes factors change scientific practice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 78–89.
(2019). Does response modality influence conflict? Modelling vocal and manual response Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000689
(1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42.
(2017). The magic of words reconsidered: Investigating the automaticity of reading color-neutral words in the Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 369–384.
(1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychonomic Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
(2006). Stroop-like serial position effects in color naming of words and nonwords. Experimental Psychology, 53, 105–110.
(1983). Effects of response type and set size on Stroop color-word performance. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 56, 735–743.
(2001).
Is semantic activation automatic? A critical re-evaluation . In H. L. RoedigerJ. S. NairneI. NeathA. M. SurprenantEds., The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 69–93). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.(2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113, 327–357.
(2008). Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesian inference: Insights from masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 434–455.
(2019). Intra-Stroop conflict: A review of varieties of conflict (and facilitation) and their measurement in the color-word Stroop task. Manuscript submitted for publication.
(1977). Stroop effects: Interference and facilitation with verbal and manual responses. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 45, 11–17.
(1978). Involuntary automatic processing in color-naming tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 130–136.
(2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88–125.
(1998). Differential components of the manual and vocal Stroop tasks. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1033–1040.
(1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
(1994). Time course of inhibition in color-response and word-response versions of the Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 647–675.
(1999). Response selection in the human anterior cingulate cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 920–924.
(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.
(1995). Semantic matching, response-mode, and response mapping as contributors to retroactive and proactive priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 913–932.
(1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304–319.
(2019). Common and specific loci of Stroop effects in vocal and manual asks, revealed by event-related brain potentials and posthypnotic suggestions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 1575–1594. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000574
