Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S-R association strength and relative timing

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 95-136

  Lu, Chen Hui ^c   Proctor, Robert W ^a,b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLOR VISION; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS;

ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS;

EID: 0035258593     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980042000048     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Ashcraft, M.H. (1989). Human memory and cognition. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
2. Baddeley, A.D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
3. Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.
4. Baldo, J.V., Shimamura, A.P., & Prinzmetal, W. (1998). Mapping symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on Stroop-like tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 427-437.
5. Barber, P., & O'Leary, M. (1997). The relevance of salience: Towards an activational account of irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility effects. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 135-172). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
6. Besner, D., Davies, J., & Daniels, S. (1981). Reading for meaning: The effects of concurrent articulation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 415-437.
7. Besner, D., & Stolz, J.A. (1998). Unintentional reading: Can phonological computation be controlled? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 35-42.
8. Chmiel, N. (1984). Phonological recoding for reading: The effect of concurrent articulation in a Stroop task.
9. Cohen, J.D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J.L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332-361.
10. Cohen, J.D., Usher, M., & McClelland, J.L. (1998). A PDP approach to set size effects within the Stroop task: Reply to Kanne, Balota, Spieler, and Faust (1998). Psychological Review, 105, 199-194.
11. De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750.
12. DeSchepper, B., & Treisman, A. (1996). Visual memory for novel shapes: Implicit coding without attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 27-47.
13. Dunbar, K.N., & MacLeod, C.M. (1984). A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 622-639.
14. Dyer, F.N. (1971). The duration of word meaning responses: Stroop interference for different preexposures of the word. Psychonomic Science, 25, 229-231.
15. Egeth, H.E., Blecker, D.L., & Kamlet, A.S. (1969). Verbal interference in a perceptual comparison task. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 355-356.
16. Eimer, M. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 837-854.
17. Eriksen, C.W., & Eriksen, B.A. (1979). Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within the display impair processing? Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 195-205.
18. Flowers, J.H., & Dutch, S. (1976). The use of visual and name codes in scanning and classifying colors. Memory & Cognition, 4, 384-390.
19. Glaser, M.O., & Glaser, W.R. (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 875-894.
20. Hommel, B. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280-290.
21. Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268.
22. Hommel, B. (1997). Interactions between stimulus-stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 59, 248-260.
23. Kanne, S.M., Balota, D.A., Spieler, D.H., & Faust, M.E. (1998). Explorations of Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland's (1990) connectionist model of Stroop performance. Psychological Review, 105, 174-187.
24. Keele, S. (1972). Attention demands of memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 245-248.
25. Kornblum, S. (1991). Stimulus-response coding in four classes of stimulus-response ensembles. In J. Requin & G.E. Stelmach (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 3-15). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
26. Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. In G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 743-747). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
27. Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research, 56, 130-135.
28. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
29. Kornblum, S., & Lee, J.-W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855-875.
30. Kornblum, S., Stevens, G.T., Whipple, A., & Requin, J. (1999). The effects of irrelevant stimuli: 1. The time-course of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response consistency effects with Stroop-like stimuli, Simon-like tasks, and their factorial combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 688-714.
31. Logan, G.D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523-553.
32. Logan, G.D., & Zbrodoff, N.J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166-174.
33. Logan, G.D., & Zbrodoff, N.J. (1998). Stroop-type interference: Congruity effects in color naming with typewritten responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 978-992.
34. Lu, C.-H. (1997). Correspondence effects for irrelevant information in choice-reaction tasks: Characterizing the S-R relations and the processing dynamics. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 85-117). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
35. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R.W. (1994). Processing of an irrelevant location dimension as a function of the relevant stimulus dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 286-298.
36. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R.W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.
37. MacLeod, C.M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
38. Marble, J.G., & Proctor, R.W. (1999). Mixing location-irrelevant and location-irrelevant choice-reaction tasks: Influences of location mapping on the Simon effect. Manuscript submitted for publication.
39. Martin, M. (1978). Speech recoding in silent reading. Memory & Cognition, 6, 108-114.
40. Melara, R.D., & Mounts, J.R.W. (1993). Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice. Memory & Cognition, 21, 627-645.
41. O'Leary, M.J., & Barber, P.J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 830-844.
42. Oliver, L.M., & Kornblum, S. (1991, November). Dimensional overlap and population stereotype as joint predictors of S-R compatibility. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Francisco, CA.
43. Proctor, R.W., & Lu, C.-H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory & Cognition, 27, 63-77.
44. Proctor, R.W., & Wang, H. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 11-37). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
45. Roswarski, T.E., & Proctor, R.W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks. Psychological Research, 58, 196-211.
46. Saito, S. (1998). Phonological loop and intermittent activity: A whistle task as articulatory suppression. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 18-23.
47. Seymour, P.H. (1973). Stroop interference in naming and verifying spatial locations. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 95-100.
48. Simon, J.R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R.W. Proctor & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31-86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
49. Simon, J.R., & Berbaum, K. (1990). Effect of conflicting cues: The "Stroop effect" vs. the "Simon effect". Acta Psychologica, 73, 159-170.
50. Simon, J.R., & Sudalaimuthu, P. (1979). Effects of S-R mapping and response modality on performance on a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 176-187.
51. Starreveld, P.A., & La Heij, W. (1996). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 896-918.
52. Stroop, J.R. (1992). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 15-23. (Reprinted from Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935, 18, 643-662.)
53. Stroop, J.R. (1992). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 15-23. (Reprinted from Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935, 18, 643-662.)
54. Sugg, M.J., & McDonald, J.E. (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.
55. Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umiltà, C., & Bassignani, F. (in press). The role of LTM links and STM links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
56. Teichner, W.H., & Krebs, M.J. (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 81, 75-98.
57. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R.W. Proctor & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
58. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1992). An integrated model of the Simon effect. In J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. Junca de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.), Analytic approach to human cognition (pp. 331-350). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
59. Umiltà, C., & Zorzi, M. (1997). Commentary on Barber and O'Leary: Learning and attention in S-R compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 173-178). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
60. Virzi, R.A., & Egeth, H.E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304-319.
61. Wang, H., & Proctor, R.W. (1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201-1217.
62. Wickens, C.D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-101). New York: Academic Press.
63. Zhang, H., & Kornblum, S. (1998). The effects of stimulus-response mapping and irrelevant stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus overlap in four-choice Stroop tasks with single-carrier stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 3-19.
64. Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 193-205.