Department of Psychology, Macquarie University.
Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020 Aug;46(8):1494-1504. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000828. Epub 2020 Feb 27.
The present study investigated how response mode (oral vs. manual) modulates the Stroop effect using a picture variant of the Stroop task in which participants named orally, or identified with a manual keypress, line drawings of animals (e.g., camel). Consistent with previous color-response Stroop studies, relative to the nonlinguistic neutral distractor (a row of "#" symbols), incongruent distractors (e.g., GIRAFFE) interfered with responding to pictures, and that interference was reduced for the manual, compared with the oral, response. Additionally, pseudoword distractors with no phonological overlap with the picture name (e.g., NUST-camel) interfered with the oral, but not the manual, response. The novel finding is that relative to this pseudoword distractor, the oral response was facilitated when the distractor shared the onset segment with the picture name, regardless of orthographic overlap (e.g., CUST-camel = KUST-camel < NUST-camel); in contrast, for the manual response, there was no difference between the three pseudoword distractor conditions. These results are explained in terms of phonological encoding, a speech production process involved in computing a phonetic plan for generating an oral, but not a manual, response. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
本研究采用图片版 Stroop 任务考察了反应模式（口头与手动）如何调节 Stroop 效应，在该任务中，参与者需要口头命名或通过手动按键来识别动物（如骆驼）的线条画。与先前的颜色-反应 Stroop 研究一致，与非语言中性干扰项（一排“#”符号）相比，不一致的干扰项（如长颈鹿）会干扰对图片的反应，而手动反应的干扰比口头反应小。此外，与图片名称没有语音重叠的假词干扰项（如 NUST-camel）干扰了口头反应，但不干扰手动反应。新的发现是，相对于这个假词干扰项，当干扰项与图片名称共享起始段时，无论是否存在正字法重叠（如 CUST-camel = KUST-camel < NUST-camel），口头反应都会得到促进；相比之下，对于手动反应，三种假词干扰条件之间没有差异。这些结果可以用语音编码来解释，语音编码是一种参与生成口头但不是手动反应的语音产生过程。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。
