Augustinova Maria, Parris Benjamin A, Ferrand Ludovic
UNIROUEN, CRFDP, Normandie Université, Rouen, France.
CNRS, LAPSCO, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Front Psychol. 2019 Aug 19;10:1786. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01786. eCollection 2019.
Several accounts of the Stroop task assume that the Stroop interference effect has several distinct loci (as opposed to a single response locus). The present study was designed to explore whether this is the case with both manual and vocal responses. To this end, we used an extended form of the Stroop paradigm (Augustinova et al., 2018b) that successfully distinguishes between the contribution of the task vs. semantic vs. response conflict to overall Stroop interference. In line with past findings, the results of Experiment 1 yielded an important response modality effect: the magnitude of Stroop interference was substantially larger when vocal responses were used (as opposed to key presses). Moreover, the present findings show that the response modality effect is specifically due to the fact that Stroop interference observed with vocal responses results from the significant contribution of task, semantic, and response conflicts, whereas only semantic and response conflicts clearly significantly contribute to Stroop interference observed with manual responses (no significant task conflict was observed). This exact pattern was replicated in Experiment 2. Also, and importantly, Experiment 2 also investigated whether and how the response modality effect affects Stroop facilitation. The results showed that the magnitude of Stroop facilitation was also larger when vocal as opposed to manual responses were used. This was due to the fact that semantic and response facilitation contributed to the overall Stroop facilitation observed with vocal responses, but surprisingly, only semantic facilitation contributed with manual responses (no response facilitation was observed). We discuss these results in terms of quantitative rather than qualitative differences in processing between vocal and manual Stroop tasks, within the framework of an integrative multistage account of Stroop interference (Augustinova et al., 2018b).
关于斯特鲁普任务的几种观点认为，斯特鲁普干扰效应有几个不同的位点（与单一反应位点相对）。本研究旨在探讨手动反应和语音反应是否都是如此。为此，我们使用了斯特鲁普范式的扩展形式（奥古斯汀诺娃等人，2018年b），该形式成功地区分了任务冲突、语义冲突和反应冲突对总体斯特鲁普干扰的贡献。与过去的研究结果一致，实验1的结果产生了一个重要的反应方式效应：当使用语音反应时（与按键相对），斯特鲁普干扰的程度要大得多。此外，本研究结果表明，反应方式效应具体是由于语音反应中观察到的斯特鲁普干扰是由任务冲突、语义冲突和反应冲突的显著贡献导致的，而手动反应中观察到的斯特鲁普干扰仅由语义冲突和反应冲突明显显著地导致（未观察到显著的任务冲突）。实验2重复了这一确切模式。同样重要的是，实验2还研究了反应方式效应是否以及如何影响斯特鲁普促进效应。结果表明，当使用语音反应而不是手动反应时，斯特鲁普促进效应的程度也更大。这是因为语义促进和反应促进对语音反应中观察到的总体斯特鲁普促进有贡献，但令人惊讶的是，手动反应中只有语义促进有贡献（未观察到反应促进）。我们在斯特鲁普干扰的综合多阶段理论框架内（奥古斯汀诺娃等人，2018年b），从语音和手动斯特鲁普任务处理的数量而非质量差异方面讨论了这些结果。
