Suppr超能文献

语义斯特鲁普效应受内源性注意控制。

The semantic Stroop effect is controlled by endogenous attention.

作者信息

Kinoshita Sachiko, Mills Luke, Norris Dennis

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Macquarie University.

MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit.

出版信息

J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Nov;44(11):1730-1742. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000552. Epub 2018 Apr 19.

Abstract

Using the oral and manual Stroop tasks we tested the claim that retrieval of meaning from a written word is automatic, in the sense that it cannot be controlled. The semantic interference effect (greater interference caused by color-related words than color-neutral words) was used as the index of semantic activation. To manipulate the level of attentional control over the task of reading, the proportion of nonreadable, neutral trials (a row of #s) was varied (75% vs. 25%). In all four experiments a high-neutral proportion magnified the interference caused by word distractors. With the color-associated words presented in incongruent color (e.g., LEMON in blue), the semantic Stroop effect was weak and did not interact with neutral proportion (Experiment 1 and 2). Experiment 3 and 4 used color names (e.g., GREEN) not in the response set, and here the semantic interference effect was more robust, and the effect was magnified in the high-neutral proportion condition. We take these results to argue that semantic retrieval is controlled by endogenous attention in the Stroop task. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

我们使用口头和手动斯特鲁普任务来检验以下观点

从书面文字中提取意义是自动的,即无法被控制。语义干扰效应(与颜色相关的词比与颜色无关的词造成更大的干扰)被用作语义激活的指标。为了操纵对阅读任务的注意力控制水平,不可读的中性试验(一排#)的比例有所变化(75%对25%)。在所有四个实验中,高比例的中性试验放大了单词干扰物造成的干扰。当与颜色相关的词以不一致的颜色呈现时(例如,蓝色的“LEMON”),语义斯特鲁普效应较弱,且与中性比例没有交互作用(实验1和2)。实验3和4使用了不在反应集中的颜色名称(例如,“GREEN”),在这里语义干扰效应更强,并且在高中性比例条件下该效应被放大。我们依据这些结果认为,在斯特鲁普任务中语义提取受内源性注意力控制。(《心理学文摘数据库记录》(c)2018美国心理学会,保留所有权利)

相似文献

1
The semantic Stroop effect is controlled by endogenous attention.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Nov;44(11):1730-1742. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000552. Epub 2018 Apr 19.
2
The magic of words reconsidered: Investigating the automaticity of reading color-neutral words in the Stroop task.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Mar;43(3):369-384. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000311. Epub 2016 Sep 22.
3
Stop interfering: Stroop task conflict independence from informational conflict and interference.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013;66(7):1356-67. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.741606. Epub 2012 Nov 19.
4
You can't Stroop a lexical decision: is semantic processing fundamentally facilitative?
Can J Exp Psychol. 2013 Jun;67(2):130-9. doi: 10.1037/a0030355. Epub 2012 Dec 3.
6
Dissociating stimulus-stimulus and response-response effects in the Stroop task.
Can J Exp Psychol. 2005 Jun;59(2):132-8. doi: 10.1037/h0087468.
7
Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2018 Sep;189:54-62. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.03.009. Epub 2017 Apr 11.
8
Attentional constraints on semantic activation: Evidence from Stroop's paradigm.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2018 Sep;189:4-11. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.08.008. Epub 2016 Sep 1.
9
Selective inhibition and naming performance in semantic blocking, picture-word interference, and color-word Stroop tasks.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2015 Nov;41(6):1806-1820. doi: 10.1037/a0039363. Epub 2015 Jun 1.
10
Stroop effects on redemption and semantic effects on confession: simultaneous automatic activation of embedded and carrier words.
Cogn Process. 2009 Nov;10(4):327-34. doi: 10.1007/s10339-009-0257-z. Epub 2009 Mar 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Age-related differences in information, but not task control in the color-word Stroop task.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Jan 17. doi: 10.3758/s13423-024-02631-z.
2
Distinct components of Stroop interference and facilitation: The role of phonology and response modality.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2025 May;78(5):997-1015. doi: 10.1177/17470218241302490. Epub 2024 Dec 20.
3
Neurocognitive mechanisms of emotional interference in native and foreign languages: evidence from proficient bilinguals.
Front Behav Neurosci. 2024 Aug 7;18:1392005. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2024.1392005. eCollection 2024.
4
Evidence for Two Types of Task Conflict in a Color-Digit Stroop Task.
J Cogn. 2024 Jul 12;7(1):54. doi: 10.5334/joc.386. eCollection 2024.
6
Cognitive control controls the effect of irrelevant stimulus-response learning.
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2024 Apr;86(3):866-882. doi: 10.3758/s13414-024-02860-3. Epub 2024 Feb 27.
7
The contribution of difficulty of an irrelevant task to task conflict.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2025 May;78(5):956-962. doi: 10.1177/17470218241228709. Epub 2024 Feb 6.
8
Onset complexity and task conflict in the Stroop task.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2025 May;78(5):978-996. doi: 10.1177/17470218231214515. Epub 2023 Dec 4.
9
Local and global control adjustments to stimulus-based task conflict in task switching.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2025 May;78(5):963-977. doi: 10.1177/17470218231200442. Epub 2023 Sep 28.
10
Do Task Sets Compete in the Stroop Task and Other Selective Attention Paradigms?
J Cogn. 2023 May 4;6(1):23. doi: 10.5334/joc.272. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

1
The magic of words reconsidered: Investigating the automaticity of reading color-neutral words in the Stroop task.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Mar;43(3):369-384. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000311. Epub 2016 Sep 22.
3
Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics.
Front Psychol. 2015 Feb 10;6:117. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00117. eCollection 2015.
4
Exploring relations between task conflict and informational conflict in the Stroop task.
Psychol Res. 2015 Nov;79(6):913-27. doi: 10.1007/s00426-014-0630-0. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
5
Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results.
Front Psychol. 2014 Jul 29;5:781. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781. eCollection 2014.
6
Conflict components of the Stroop effect and their "control".
Front Psychol. 2014 May 20;5:463. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00463. eCollection 2014.
7
Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.
J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3). doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.
8
Additive effects of word frequency and stimulus quality: the influence of trial history and data transformations.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Sep;39(5):1563-71. doi: 10.1037/a0032186. Epub 2013 Apr 8.
9
Suggestion does not de-automatize word reading: evidence from the semantically based Stroop task.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Jun;19(3):521-7. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0217-y.
10
Attention, spatial integration, and the tail of response time distributions in Stroop task performance.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(1):135-50. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2011.605152. Epub 2011 Sep 21.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验