Kinoshita Sachiko, De Wit Bianca, Norris Dennis
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University.
Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Mar;43(3):369-384. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000311. Epub 2016 Sep 22.
In 2 variants of the color-word Stroop task, we compared 5 types of color-neutral distractors-real words (e.g., HAT), pseudowords (e.g., HIX), consonant strings (e.g., HDK), symbol strings (e.g., #$%), and a row of Xs (e.g., XXX)-as well as incongruent color words (e.g., GREEN displayed in red). When participants named the color, relative to a row of Xs, words and pseudowords interfered equally and more than the consonant strings, which in turn interfered more than the symbols. In contrast, when participants identified the color by manual key-press responses, all 5 types of neutral strings produced equal color response latencies. In both tasks, the incongruent color words produced robust interference relative to the color-neutral words. Reaction time (RT) distribution analyses showed that all interference effects (relative to the row of Xs) increased across the quantiles. We interpret these results in terms of an evidence accumulation process in which the interfering distractor reduces the effective rate of evidence accumulation for the color target. We take the results to argue that the task of reading, even when triggered unintentionally, is not an invariant process driven solely by the stimulus properties, and is instead guided by the task goal. (PsycINFO Database Record
在颜色-文字Stroop任务的两种变体中，我们比较了5种颜色中性干扰物——真词（如HAT）、假词（如HIX）、辅音串（如HDK）、符号串（如#$%）和一排X（如XXX）——以及不一致的颜色词（如用红色显示的GREEN）。当参与者说出颜色时，相对于一排X，真词和假词产生的干扰相同，且比辅音串的干扰更大，而辅音串的干扰又比符号的干扰更大。相比之下，当参与者通过手动按键反应来识别颜色时，所有5种中性字符串产生的颜色反应潜伏期相同。在这两个任务中，相对于颜色中性词，不一致的颜色词都产生了强烈的干扰。反应时（RT）分布分析表明，所有干扰效应（相对于一排X）在各分位数上都有所增加。我们根据证据积累过程来解释这些结果，在这个过程中，干扰性刺激物会降低颜色目标的有效证据积累速率。我们认为这些结果表明，阅读任务即使是在无意触发时，也不是一个仅由刺激属性驱动的不变过程，而是由任务目标引导的。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》 ）
