P300 and response time from a manual Stroop task

Clinical Neurophysiology

Volumn 110, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 367-373

  Ila, Aaron B ^a   Polich, John ^a  

^a SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Attention; Event related potential; P300; Response time; Stimulus response compatibility; Stroop

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FACILITATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0344483884     PISSN: 13882457     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-5597(98)00053-7     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Cohen J.D., Dunbar K., McClelland J.L. On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychol. Rev. 97:1990;332-361.
2. Donchin E. Surprise!.Surprise? Psychophysiology. 18:1981;493-513.
3. Donchin E., Coles M.G.H. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behav. Brain Sci. 11:1988;357-374.
4. Duncan-Johnson C.C., Donchin E. The P300 component of the event-related brain potential as an index of information processing. Biol. Psychol. 14:1982;1-52.
5. Duncan-Johnson C.C., Kopell B.S. The Stroop effect: Brain potentials localize the source of interference. Science. 214:1981;938-940.
6. Falkenstein M., Hohnsbein J., Hoormann J. Late visual and auditory ERP components and choice reaction time. Biol. Psychol. 35:1993;201-224.
7. Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J. and Hoormann, J. Effects of choice complexity on different subcomponents of the late positive complex of the event-related potential. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1994a, 92: 148-160.
8. Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J. and Hoormann, J. Time pressure effects on late components of the event-related potential (ERP). J. Psychophysiol., 1994b, 8: 22-30.
9. Fraisse P. Why is naming longer than reading? Acta Psychol. 30:1969;96-103.
10. Frith C.D., Done D.J. Routes to action in reaction time tasks. Psychol. Res. 48:1986;169-177.
11. Glaser W.R., Glaser M.O. Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 18:1989;13-42.
12. Hohnsbein J., Falkenstein M., Hoormann J., Blanke L. Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. I. Simple and choice reaction tasks Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol. 78:1991;438-446.
13. Keele S.W. Attention demands of memory retrieval. J. Exp. Psychol. 93:1972;245-248.
14. Klapp S.T., Boches C.A., Trabert M.L., Logan G.D. Automatizing alphabet arithmetic. II. Are there practice effects after automaticity is achieved? J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 17:1991;196-209.
15. Klein G.S. Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming. Am. J. Psychol. 77:1964;576-588.
16. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., Osman A. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychol. Rev. 97:1990;253-270.
17. Kramer A.F., Strayer D.L. Assessing the development of automatic processing: An application of dual-task and event-related brain potential methodologies. Biol. Psychol. 26:1988;231-267.
18. Kucera, H. and Francis, W.N. Computational Analysis of Present-day American English. Brown University Press, Providence, RI, 1967.
19. Kutas M., McCarthy G., Donchin E. Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science. 197:1977;792-795.
20. Logan G.D., Zbrodoff N.J., Williamson J. Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 22:1984;135-138.
21. MacLeod C.M. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychol. Bull. 109:1991;163-203.
22. Magliero A., Bashore T.R., Coles M.G.H., Donchin E. On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. Psychophysiology. 21:1984;171-186.
23. McCarthy G., Donchin E. A metric for thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science. 211:1981;77-80.
24. McClain L. Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference. Percept. Psychophys. 33:1983;266-270.
25. Morton J., Chambers S.M. Selective attention to words and colours. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 25:1973;387-397.
26. Pashler H., Baylis G.C. Procedural learning. II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 17:1991;33-48.
27. Pfefferbaum A., Ford J.M., Johnson R.J., Wenegrat B., Kopell B.S. Manipulation of P3 Latency: speed vs. accuracy instructions. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol. 55:1983;188-197.
28. Pfefferbaum A., Christensen C., Ford J.M., Kopell B.S. Apparent response incompatibility effects on P3 latency depend on the task. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol. 64:1986;424-437.
29. Phaf R.H., Van der Heijden A.H., Hudson P.T. SLAM: A connectionist model for attention in visual selection tasks. Cogn. Psychol. 22:1990;273-341.
30. Polich J., Donchin E. P300 and the word frequency effect. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol. 70:1988;33-45.
31. Posner, M.I. and Snyder, C.R.R. Attention and cognitive control. In: R.L. Solso (Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1975.
32. Ragot R. Perceptual and motor space representation: An event-related potential study. Psychophysiology. 21:1984;159-170.
33. Ragot R., Renault B. P300, as a function of S-R compatibility and motor programming. Biol. Psychol. 13:1981;289-294.
34. Ragot R., Renault B. P300 and S-R compatibility: a reply to Magliero et al. Psychophysiology. 22:1985;349-352.
35. Redding G.M., Gerjets D.A. Stroop effect: interference and facilitation with verbal and manual responses. Percep. Motor Skills. 1:1977;11-17.
36. Roe W.T., Wilsoncroft W.E., Griffiths R.S. Effects of motor and verbal practice on the Stroop task. Percep. Motor Skills. 50:1980;647-650.
37. Rugg M.D., Cox C.J.C., Doyle M.C., Wells T. Event-related potentials and the recollection of low and high frequency words. Neuropsychologia. 33:1995;471-484.
38. Rosler F., Borgstedt J., Sojka B. When perceptual or motor sets are changed: Effects of updating demands on structure and energy of P300. Acta Psychol. 60:1985;293-321.
39. Schmit V., Davis R. The role of hemispheric specialization in the analysis of Stroop stimuli. Acta Psychol. 38:1974;149-158.
40. Stroop J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J. Exp. Psychol. 18:1935;643-662.
41. Sugg M.J., McDonald J.E. Time course of inhibition in color-response and word-response versions of the Stroop task. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percep. Perform. 20:1994;647-675.
42. Treisman A., Fearnley S. The Stroop test: selective attention to colors and words. Nature. 222:1969;437-439.
43. Verleger R. On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. Psychophysiology. 34:1997;131-156.
44. Virzi R.A., Egeth H.E. Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Mem. Cogn. 13:1985;304-319.
45. Warren L.R., Marsh G.R. Changes in event-related potentials during processing of Stroop stimuli. Int. J. Neurosci. 9:1979;217-223.
46. Wickens C., Kramer A., Vanasse L., Donchin E. Performance of concurrent tasks: a psychophysiological analysis of the reciprocity of information-processing resources. Science. 221:1983;1080-1082.